“If I were in the position of your Government, I would
act upon it, and thus, by a great strategic movement,
turn the flank of the European powers, _especially of the
governing classes of England_. I would propose to let Mason
and Slidell go, and stipulate, at the same time, for a
complete abandonment of the old code of Maritime Law as
upheld by England and the European powers. I would propose
that private property at sea should be exempt from capture
by armed Government ships. On this condition I would give
in my adhesion to the abolition of privateering. I would
propose that neutral merchant vessels, in time of war, as
in time of peace, should be exempt from search, visitation,
or detention, by armed Government vessels, when on the
ocean or high seas,--I mean when beyond that distance from
the shore which removes them from the jurisdiction of any
maritime state. I would propose to abolish blockades of
purely commercial ports, excepting for articles contraband
of war.”
To these just and magnificent reforms Mr. Cobden returns in
other letters, dwelling on the abolition of blockades, but
pressing upon our country the duty of advancing all, and, in
the ardor of appeal, exclaiming, “Take high ground with Europe
for a complete sweep of the old maritime code, and then take
your own time to deal with the Slave States,” and concluding
another letter with the words, “Recollect how immensely you
would gain in moral power by leading all Europe in the path of
civilization. You owe it to yourselves and us.”
This correspondence reveals the anxiety of good Englishmen,
and also the various reports by which the public mind was
perplexed. In one letter Mr. Cobden writes: “Everybody tells
me that war is inevitable; and yet I do not believe in war.”
In another he mentions “an impression in high quarters that
Mr. Seward wishes to quarrel with this country,” which he
characterizes as “absurd enough.” In another he alludes to
the joint resolution of thanks to Captain Wilkes, adopted by
the House of Representatives, as “viewed here by our alarmist
journals as almost a declaration of war”; and, after mentioning
that “grave men, holding the highest post in your cultivated
State of Massachusetts, compliment Captain Wilkes for having
given an affront to the British lion,” he says, with point, “It
makes it very hard for Bright and me to contend against the
British-lion party in this country.”
Even in this peculiar atmosphere his clearness of perception
did not fail, and Mr. Cobden saw the mistake of principle or
policy involved in the “impressment” of the Rebel agents. In
the postscript of a letter dated November 27, the very day
when the taking was first known in London, he wrote: “We are
rather unprepared to find you exercising in a strained manner
the right of search, _inasmuch as you have been supposed to be
always the opponents of the practice_.”
In the same vein his eloquent colleague, Mr. Bright, wrote,
under date of December 5: “Our law officers are agreed and
strong in their opinion of the illegality of the seizure of the
commissioners; _but I cannot make out how or where it exceeds
the course taken by English ships of war before the War of
1812_. But all the people here, of course, accept their opinion
as conclusive on the law of the case.”
Thus directly from the opinions of the law officers, and also
from various testimony, including the press, is it apparent
that the special objection of England was founded on the
forcible taking of “certain individuals” from a British vessel.
Naturally, therefore, Mr. Sumner planted himself on the early
American postulate, constantly maintained by us and constantly
denied by England. In the able note already cited Mr. Dana sums
up the result.
“This celebrated case can be considered as having settled
but one principle, and that had substantially ceased to be
a disputed question: viz., that a public ship, though of a
nation at war, cannot take persons out of a neutral vessel
at sea, whatever may be the claim of her Government on
those persons.”[25]
Mr. Seward was, therefore, right, when, in his communication
to Lord Lyons, he announced the settlement of the case “upon
principles confessedly American.”[26] In similar spirit,
Prince Gortschakoff, in behalf of the Russian Cabinet,
congratulated our Republic upon “remaining faithful to the
political principles which she has always maintained, even
when those principles were turned against her, and abstaining
from invoking in her turn the benefit of doctrines which she
has always repudiated.”[27] And Baron Ricasoli, speaking for
the Italian Cabinet, would not believe that the Government at
Washington “desired to change its character all at once, and
become the champion of theories which history has shown to be
calamitous, and which public opinion has condemned forever.”[28]
* * * * *
The correspondence “in relation to the recent removal of
certain citizens of the United States from the British
mail-steamer Trent,” including the letter of Earl Russell and
the reply of Mr. Seward, and also the letter of M. Thouvenel,
Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, was communicated to
the Senate January 6, 1862. Its reference to the Committee
on Foreign Relations was, on motion of Mr. Sumner, made the
special order for January 9th, at one o’clock, when he made his
speech.
January 7th, two days before Mr. Sumner’s speech, the subject
was discussed in the House of Representatives, and strong
speeches were made against the surrender. Mr. Vallandigham, of
Ohio, a leading Democrat, said:--
“I avail myself of this, the earliest opportunity yet
presented, to express my utter and strong condemnation,
as one of the Representatives of the people, of the act
of the Administration surrendering Mr. Mason and Mr.
Slidell to the British Government.… In six days after the
imperious and peremptory demand of Great Britain they were
abjectly surrendered, upon the mere rumor of the approach
of a hostile fleet; and thus, Sir, for the first time in
our national history, have we strutted insolently into
a quarrel without right and then basely crept out of it
without honor; and thus, too, for the first time, has
the American eagle been made to cower before the British
lion.”[29]