THE EFFECT IN ENGLAND.
Immediately after the Trent and San Jacinto separated on the afternoon
of November 8, the purser of the former vessel, thinking doubtless
that it would be quite an honor to himself to be first in reporting
the matter to the British public, addressed a statement to the editor
of the London Times, giving the “particulars of the grievous outrage
committed to-day against the English flag” by the American captain
Wilkes.
Then follows an account of the escape of the southern commissioners
from Charleston in “the little steamer Theodora,” their arrival
at Havana and embarkation on the Trent, where they felt entirely
safe under a neutral flag. The purser then says that on the second
day of the voyage a large steamer was observed ahead in the Bahama
channel; that she was evidently waiting, and first gave notice of her
nationality and intention by firing a round shot across the bows of the
Trent, and at the same moment displaying American colors; that upon a
nearer approach, a large shell was fired across the bows of the English
vessel; that it “passed within a few yards of the ship, bursting about
a hundred yards to leeward.” It is then stated that the Trent stopped;
that a large boat containing between twenty and thirty heavily-armed
men pushed off from the side of the San Jacinto under the command of a
lieutenant, who boarded the Trent and demanded the papers and passenger
list of the vessel, and afterward the surrender of the commissioners,
all of which was indignantly refused; that the lieutenant then walked
to the side of the ship and waved his hand toward the San Jacinto,
after which, “immediately three more heavily-armed boats pushed off
and surrounded the ship, and the party of marines who had come in the
first boat came up and took possession of the quarter-deck,” and that
the envoys were then seized and forcibly put into the boat against the
protest of all the passengers and crew, including Captain Williams of
the Royal Navy.
The account continues as follows: “During the whole of this time the
San Jacinto was about two hundred yards distant from us on the port
beam, her broadside guns, which were all manned, directly bearing
upon us. Any open resistance to such a force was of course hopeless,
although from the loud and repeated plaudits which followed Captain
Williams’s protestation, and which were joined in by every one, without
exception, of the passengers congregated on the quarter-deck, men of
all nations, and from the manifested desire of some to resist to the
last, I have no doubt but that every person would have joined heart and
soul in the struggle had our commander but given the order. Such an
order he could not, under such adverse circumstances, conscientiously
give, and it was therefore considered sufficient that a party of
marines with bayonets fixed should forcibly lay hands on the gentlemen
named. This was done, and the gentlemen retired to their cabins to
arrange some few changes of clothing.”
“A most heart-rending scene now took place between Mr. Slidell,
his eldest daughter, a noble girl devoted to her father, and the
lieutenant. It would require a far more able pen than mine to describe
how, with flashing eyes and quivering lips, she threw herself in the
doorway of the cabin where her father was, resolved to defend him with
her life, till, on the order being given to the marines to advance,
which they did with bayonets pointed at this poor defenseless girl,
her father ended the painful scene by escaping from the cabin by a
window, when he was immediately seized by the marines and hurried to
the boat, calling out to Captain Moir as he left that he held him and
his government responsible for this outrage.
“If further proof were required of the meanness and cowardly bullying
in the line of conduct pursued by the captain of the San Jacinto, I may
remark, first, that on being asked if they would have committed this
outrage if we had been a man-of-war, they replied, ‘certainly not;’
and, secondly, that Captain Wilkes sent an order for Captain Moir to
go on board his ship, and a second for Captain Moir to move the Trent
closer to the San Jacinto. Of course not the slightest notice was taken
of either order, nor did they attempt to enforce them.”
It will be noticed that the paragraphs quoted were specially prepared
to excite the indignation of the British public. The entire account is
very sensational and highly colored. Some statements in it are pure
fictions, if the testimony of the officers who boarded the Trent are at
all worthy of credence.
On November 9, while yet at sea, Commander Williams prepared an
official report of the matter to be submitted to the admiralty as soon
as he arrived in England. This account was substantially the same
as that given by the purser, except that some of the facts are more
distorted, and the number of fictions in it somewhat larger.
The report of Commander Williams and the statement of the purser of
the Trent reached England and were made public on November 27. With
a ministry and parliament composed largely of enemies of the United
States, with nearly all of the rich and influential class unfriendly,
with a press which exhibited only hatred for the North, and continually
advocated the cause of the South, with a large population of merchants,
tradesmen and cotton workers who were complaining on account of the
injuries they sustained from the blockade, and who were anxious
for the government to interfere in the American difficulty, it may
readily be imagined what effect the news of Captain Wilkes’s act
created in England. If it had been reported that the Americans had
deliberately and wantonly captured and burned the Trent and her cargo,
the excitement throughout the country would not have been greater. No
single announcement in modern times has affected the English government
and people as did that of Commander Williams and the purser of the
Trent. With a few notable exceptions among the prominent men, it was
everywhere proclaimed by both press and people that Captain Wilkes’s
act was a violation of international law, an attack on the sacred right
of asylum, a “wanton outrage and an insult” which should not for a
moment be tolerated. The government was called upon to vindicate the
honor of the British flag by instantly exacting a full and complete
reparation, or, in the event of failure to obtain it, war must be
declared against the Federal States of America at once, and such a
castigation administered to the insolent Yankees as would thrice over
atone for the indignity they had dared to offer to England. There was
very little discussion of texts or precedents, or of the legality of
the matter. The offensive and intolerant course which the English
navy had pursued toward all neutral powers during and after the
Napoleonic wars was apparently forgotten, because it was not convenient
to remember it just then. Public meetings denounced the “outrage,”
prominent men condemned it, and the English newspapers with very few
exceptions used their utmost endeavors to stir up the indignation
and the war spirit of the British people. The most violent abuse and
malignant hatred of everything American was exhibited, not only in
the ordinary newspapers, but also in the conservative reviews and
quarterlies. A storm of indignation which has rarely been equaled swept
the British nation from Edinburgh to Dover.
It is not difficult for a government to find a pretext for making war
or parading its military power in the sight of another nation, whenever
it desires to do so. The British government was not slow to act in
this case. Lord Palmerston, its leader, was an enemy of the American
republic, and was easily swayed by the popular feeling and by his own
prejudice.
Preparations for war were begun on a scale which was sufficient to tax
the utmost strength and resources of the United Kingdom. There was
no delay after the reception of the news, but operations were pushed
with a feverish activity both day and night. On November 30 the lords
commissioners of the admiralty were instructed by Lord Russell to
direct Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Milne to communicate fully with Lord
Lyons at Washington. Earl Russell mentions the recent “act of wanton
violence and outrage,” and says it is necessary to “look to the safety
of her majesty’s possessions in North America,” and that care should
be taken not to place any of the ships in positions “where they may
be surprised or commanded by batteries on land of a superior force.”
Arrangements were also made at once for a large increase in the British
naval force in North American and West Indian waters.
On the same day an official order was issued forbidding the shipment of
any saltpeter until further notice was given. Large quantities of it
had already been placed in lighters at the London custom-house ready
to be loaded on board outgoing ships, but the whole was relanded and
returned into warehouses under the supervision of custom officers.
On December 4, Queen Victoria issued a royal proclamation forbidding
the export of gunpowder, niter, nitrate of soda, brimstone, lead and
fire-arms from all the ports of the United Kingdom. At the great
Woolwich arsenal there was the bustle of extraordinary activity, and
work which was not suspended either for night or Sunday. Enfield
rifles, cannon, and great quantities of ammunition and other warlike
material were being loaded on board the great ship Melbourne for
transportation to Canada. On Sunday, December 1, twenty-five thousand
muskets were conveyed from the Tower and loaded for shipment. Large
quantities of Armstrong and Whitworth cannon were immediately purchased
by the government. Transports of large capacity were needed. The great
steam packet Persia was taken from other service and employed to
transport troops to Canada. The immense iron-clad ship, The Warrior,
the best war vessel in the British navy, was hastily prepared for
service. Unusual activity was noticeable at all of the dock yards. War
vessels were being hastily put into a state of forwardness for real
service.
The Earl of Derby was consulted by the government in regard to the
“American difficulty.” He approved its policy and suggested to
ship-owners that the captains of outward bound ships be instructed to
signal any English ships which they might see that war with America was
probable. This suggestion was strongly approved by underwriters, in
whose imaginations privateers were already at work. No insurance could
be had on American vessels on any terms.
In the stock market, too, a panic prevailed, and American securities
dropped amazingly in view of the war which seemed at hand.
Preparations were also made for placing the military forces upon a war
footing, and it was arranged to increase the army in Canada at once
by an addition of thirty thousand men. Recruiting began with unusual
vigor. The very flower of the British standing army were mustered and
passed in review, after which they embarked for Halifax. Among them
were all of the most noted batteries and regiments, among which were
the guards, to whom was accorded the distinguished honor of taking
part in all important wars. These were the first to start to the seat
of war. They believed that they were going to Charleston to help the
Confederates. The guards played the well known American air, “I am off
to Charleston,” while embarking on their vessels.
Thurlow Weed, who was then in England, says: “I rose early on Friday
morning and went down to St. James’s barracks to see a regiment of
guards take up their line of march for Canada. Nearly fifty years had
elapsed since I had seen ‘British red-coats’ whose muskets were turned
against us. Something of the old feeling--a feeling which I supposed
had died out, began to rise, and, after a few moments of painful
thought, I turned away.”[1]
One of the principal newspapers of London, in an account of the
departure of the transports Adriatic and Parana with troops for Canada,
said: “As the Adriatic moved out of dock, the large shields on her
paddle-boxes emblazoned with the stars and stripes, reminded everybody
of the remarkable coincidence that an American-built steamer, and until
within a few months the property of American owners, should be one of
the first employed in the transport of British troops to the northern
part of the American continent, to operate, probably, against the
country in which she was built.
“On the two vessels leaving the docks, the volunteer band took up a
position on the extreme end of the jetty, and as the Adriatic slowly
moved past, they played the appropriate airs, “I Wish I Was in Dixie,”
and “The British Grenadiers,” followed by, “Cheer, Boys, Cheer,” and
“Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot,” as the Parana passed, in each
case closing with “God Save the Queen,” after which several parting
rounds of enthusiastic cheers were exchanged between the multitude of
spectators on shore and the gallant fellows on board the vessels.”[2]
A Paris correspondent of one of the principal newspapers of New York
said: “The sudden dispatch of arms and men to Halifax, the outfit of
numerous heavy ships of war, the violent language of the British press
and concurrence of the French press, are events out of proportion to
the nominal cause of them, and indicate a secret design and a foregone
conclusion,” after which the opinion is expressed that the British
government from the beginning “was disposed to aid the rebellion for
the purpose of dissolving the Union.”
The action of the governmental authorities as detailed thus far is
well summarized by an English writer, who says: “The most energetic
preparations were made by the English government to meet the
contingency in case the demand they instantly made for the surrender
of the passengers was not instantly complied with. Troops were
dispatched to Canada with all possible expedition, and that brave and
loyal colony called out its militia and volunteers so as to be ready
to act at a moment’s notice. Our dockyards here resounded with the
din of workmen getting vessels fitted for sea, and there was but one
feeling which animated all classes and parties in the country, and that
was a determination to vindicate our insulted honor, and uphold the
inviolability of the national flag.”[3]
Another English writer says of the situation: “The outrage savored so
much of contemptuous defiance that the national feeling was wounded to
the quick. ‘Bear this, bear all,’ was the prevailing cry, and not an
hour was lost in making preparations for the war which it seemed to
be the object of the Americans to provoke. Among other measures which
showed how thoroughly we were in earnest, troops to the number of eight
thousand were dispatched to Canada.”[4]
The news of the boarding of the Trent by a Federal war steamer and
the forcible removal of the southern commissioners was received at
Liverpool by a private telegram soon after noon on the same day that
the matter first became known in England. The intelligence spread in a
wonderfully rapid manner and caused the greatest excitement among all
classes. The utmost indignation was expressed on ’Change and in a very
brief space of time the following placard was conspicuously posted:
“OUTRAGE ON THE BRITISH FLAG.”
THE SOUTHERN COMMISSIONERS FORCIBLY REMOVED
FROM A BRITISH MAIL STEAMER.
“A public meeting will be held in the cotton sales-room
at 3 o’clock.”
The preceding announcement was sufficient to cause the assembling of
a large crowd in the cotton sales-room promptly at 3 o’clock. Nearly
all of the gentlemen who frequented the exchange were present. The most
remarkable enthusiasm was manifested, and Mr. James Spence was called
to the chair.
The following resolution was offered: “That this meeting, having heard
with indignation that an American Federal ship of war has forcibly
taken from a British mail steamer certain passengers, who were
proceeding peaceably under the shelter of our flag from one neutral
port to another, do earnestly call upon the government to assert the
dignity of the British flag by requiring prompt reparation for this
outrage.” The resolution having been read, the meeting demonstrated
its concurrence with the views contained in it by long-continued and
uproarious applause. After order had been partially restored the
chairman proceeded to discuss the resolution. He said that “when the
news of the outrage reached this town, the feeling created was one of
surprise, mingled with indignation. He remarked that we had all heard
of the sacred dignity of the American flag. That dignity was a means by
which the persons engaged in the nefarious slave trade could at once
protect themselves by hoisting the American flag, which fully enabled
them to resist any attempt to search such vessel. He trusted it would
not be allowed that men prosecuting so nefarious a trade should be
protected, and that men peaceably proceeding on their own affairs,
under the protection of our flag, might be forcibly taken out of our
ships. [Cheers.] On the contrary, he believed that the people of this
country would not by any means permit such an outrage. [Cheers.] He
said, in having agreed to take the chair on this occasion, he did so
without reluctance or regret; he felt deeply that he only expressed the
feeling, not merely of the meeting, but of the community in general,
when he said it was the duty of the people to press on the government
the imperative necessity of vindicating the honor and dignity of the
British name and flag.” [Loud and continued cheering.][5]
Other speakers who desired to present a slightly more conservative
view of the matter were greeted with the greatest manifestations of
displeasure, the last one being compelled to desist from the attempt to
address the meeting. The resolution after being slightly modified was
adopted.
While all England was in a state of excitement over the seizure a great
meeting was held at Dublin, Ireland. The “Young O’Donoughue,” a member
of one of the most ancient families of his native country, a brilliant
and powerful young orator, addressed the people. Standing before a
crowd of probably five thousand people, he boldly declared that if
England engaged in a war with the United States, Ireland would be found
on the side of America--a statement which the vast assemblage cheered
with tremendous enthusiasm.
The tone of the British press was, with few exceptions, quite
vindictive. Captain Wilkes received much abuse. Some very absurd
threats were made, and much bluster was indulged in.
The London Times in discussing the matter was unwilling to admit
that similar British precedents were entitled to be considered in
justification of the act of Captain Wilkes. The comment was as
follows: “But it must be remembered that these decisions were given
under circumstances very different from those which now occur. Steamers
in those days did not exist, and mail vessels carrying letters wherein
all of the nations of the world have immediate interests were unknown.
We were fighting for existence, and we did in those days what we should
neither do nor allow others to do, nor expect ourselves to be allowed
to do in these days.”[6] This journal was the accredited exponent
of British opinion at that time so far as the government and ruling
classes were concerned. The following tirade of coarse abuse of Captain
Wilkes and Americans generally graced the columns of the Times on one
occasion while the matter of difference between the two nations was yet
unsettled: “He is unfortunately but too faithful a type of the people
in whose foul mission he is engaged. He is an ideal Yankee. Swagger
and ferocity, built on a foundation of vulgarity and cowardice--these
are his characteristics, and these are the most prominent marks by
which his countrymen, generally speaking, are known all over the
world. To bully the weak, to triumph over the helpless, to trample on
every law of country and custom, willfully to violate all the most
sacred interests of human nature, to defy as long as danger does not
appear, and, as soon as real peril shows itself, to sneak aside and
run away--these are the virtues of the race which presumes to announce
itself as the leader of civilization and the prophet of human progress
in these latter days. By Captain Wilkes let the Yankee breed be judged.”
The Saturday Review, the special organ of the aristocratic classes,
said: “The American government is in the position of the rude boor,
conscious of infinite powers of annoyance, destitute alike of scruples
and of shame, recognizing only the arbitration of the strong arm, which
repudiates the appeal to codes, and presuming, not without reason, that
more scrupulous states will avoid or defer such an arbitration as long
as they can.”
The London Punch published a cartoon about the first of December,
in which America is represented by a little blustering slave-driver
bearing the American flag. England appears as a large British sailor,
who faces the little American and says: “You do what’s right, my
son, or I’ll blow you out of the water.” The big Briton also says to
a very ungainly American officer who appears: “Now mind you sir, no
shuffling, an ample apology, or I will put the matter into the hands of
my lawyers, Messrs. Whitworth and Armstrong.” These individuals were
manufacturers of cannon which the government was buying at that time
for shipment to Canada.
The London Herald was especially bitter in its attacks on President
Lincoln and Mr. Seward, and in its condemnation of Captain Wilkes’s
act. In one of its issues this newspaper said editorially: “Mr.
Seward’s want of common sense, reticence and principle, have long
been notorious to Americans, and recent circumstances have directed
to him an amount of English attention which has made him equally well
understood and despised in this country. Unhappily, until yesterday,
we had not been able fully to appreciate the extent and depth of his
moral and mental worthlessness. We knew that he had proposed to ‘annex’
Canada, but the idea was to us who know our strength and the weakness
of the United States so utterly ludicrous that we did not, and could
not, appreciate the folly and desperate wickedness of the man who could
put it forward as a serious proposal. Since then Mr. Seward has done
everything in his power to insult Great Britain. He has encouraged
the piratical seizure of our ships; he has ordered the illegal arrest
of British subjects; he has directed his envoys at foreign courts to
resist and menace us.
“Unless Mr. Seward be simply out of his senses with rage, fear and
helplessness--unless he be intoxicated with his own boastfulness till
he believes his own statements--he must be aware that England can,
before the present month is passed, destroy or take possession of every
seaport in the northern states, raise the blockade of the southern
coast and sweep the seas clear of the Federal flag. And yet with this
knowledge, he has ventured on us an outrage which ought to be avenged
by the immediate appearance of a British fleet in the Chesapeake,
bringing the alternative of instant reparation or war.
“The chastisement which the offending government will receive will,
we trust, be severe enough, without the stimulus of this additional
atrocity to rouse the indignation of England into fury, and spur the
timidity of her majesty’s cabinet into action. We are glad to know that
the agent in charge of the mails warned the offenders in a tone which
suited the occasion and the rank he held.”
The hope was then expressed that Commander William’s protest would
“be speedily enforced by the still sterner protest of a British fleet,
conveying even to Mr. Seward’s dull conscience and Mr. Lincoln’s
bewildered brain a proper sense of the consequences which follow the
perpetration on board a British vessel” of such a terrible outrage as
the Americans had lately been guilty of committing. The last paragraph
read as follows: “What we have to do is sufficiently clear. It is the
duty of our government to demand the immediate return of the gentlemen
stolen from under our flag, in honorable guise, together with an ample
apology for a lawless act of piratical aggression, and to prepare for
the rejection of such a demand by dispatching forthwith to the American
coast such a naval force as may insure the total destruction of the
Federal navy, and the instant blockade of all of the chief northern
ports, if due satisfaction be not given without delay.”
During the entire period of excitement which was caused in England
by the seizure of the commissioners, the concentrated wrath of the
British press and public was poured upon the devoted head of Mr.
Seward. His bold stand against any recognition being extended to the
Confederates by England, and his recommendation that the coasts and
lake frontiers of the United States be put into a condition to resist
foreign aggression, caused all Englishmen who sympathized with the
South to hate him. It was said in England, and continually repeated
and emphasized by the British press, that Mr. Seward and the Federal
government at Washington proposed to annex Canada to the United States;
that a pretext was wanted for a quarrel and a war with Great Britain;
and that the boarding of the Trent and seizure of the commissioners
was a deliberate insult in pursuance of the secretary of state’s
design to provoke a rupture between the two countries. Universal and
widespread circulation was also given to a silly story to the effect
that while the Prince of Wales was in the United States, Governor
Morgan had given a dinner party to the royal guest, at which Mr.
Seward and the Duke of Newcastle were both present, when the former
said to the duke: “I expect soon to hold a very high office here in
my own country; it will then become my duty to insult England, and I
mean to do so.” There can be no doubt but that the Duke of Newcastle
told such a silly story, and it is highly probable that a belief in
its truthfulness strongly influenced the government of England in the
active and hasty preparations for war.[7]
Mr. Thurlow Weed, who had been previously sent to England to influence
public opinion there in favor of the North, wrote to Mr. Seward about
the matter. Mr. Seward was greatly surprised, and replied that the
story was so extremely absurd that to give it sufficient notice to deny
it would be almost a sacrifice of personal dignity on his own part.
The London Times having expressed at one time a “yearning” in England
after American views upon the existing complication between the two
countries, Mr. Weed ventured to supply the desired information in
a letter which he immediately contributed to that journal. In this
letter he entered a general denial of the assertion that the Federal
government desired a rupture with England, and did what he could to
undeceive the British public concerning the Seward-Newcastle story.
Mr. Adams was referred to for a true reflex of American sympathies.
The opinion was expressed that England had no real grievance of any
substantial nature against the United States, as the boundary disputes
and other questions of importance had been satisfactorily settled. The
magnificent reception of the Prince of Wales in the United States, and
the high estimation in which Americans held the Queen, also the fact
that both nations were of kindred origin, and spoke the same language,
were all dwelt upon. Gen. Scott’s recent letter on the situation
contributed to the Paris press was mentioned.
Mr. Weed said that he knew nothing of the proposed course of the
British government, but he expressed the opinion that a peremptory
demand for the release of the envoys would be met by as peremptory a
refusal, since in temper and pride Americans were as unreasoning as the
bad example of their mother country could make them. He did not believe
that Mason and Slidell were worth a war, and hoped the matter would be
considered calmly and with due deliberation.
The same issue of the Times which contained Mr. Weed’s letter
accompanied it with a leader replying to his views and asserting the
English position. It was held that “the present prime minister of the
Northern States of America” had long possessed “a deliberate and long
cherished intention” to do England a wrong. The proofs were ample,
being the Newcastle incident, the expressed wish of Mr. Seward to
annex Canada, his circular to the governors of the northern states,
and lastly the seizure of the commissioners on board an English
ship. This was sufficient evidence “that upon his ability to involve
the United States in a war with England, Mr. Seward has staked his
official, and, most probably, also his political existence, and that
whatever may be the advantage to America of a war with this country, to
him it has become an article of the very first necessity.” Mr. Seward
was then abused for designing so great an evil. Exception was taken to
each point made by Mr. Weed, and the leader closed with the following
paragraph: “But her forbearance (that of America) will never be tried.
We can, we think, convey to Mr. Thurlow Weed the sentiments of every
Englishman on this painful subject. We do not ask from America courtesy
or affection, respect for our Queen or regard for our Prince. These
things are hers to give or withhold. We do not even ask that amount
of fair treatment which we are in the habit of receiving from other
nations. We have long ago made up our minds to dispense with that; but
we do demand that she abstain from actual outrage, or that, if it is
committed, she shall make reasonable reparation. If she will do this,
it is well; if not, the alternative will not come in the desired form
of protracted negotiations.”
When the news of the seizure of the southern commissioners was received
in Europe, General Winfield Scott was in Paris. It was his intention to
spend the winter in southern Europe. The storm which the news created
in England extended in a less degree to France. The newspapers of Paris
condemned the act. It was fortunate, perhaps, that General Scott was
in the French capital, for he, being one of the most distinguished of
Americans at that time, was best able to command a hearing in England
and France. He immediately addressed a letter to the Paris press giving
his views of the situation, which he comprehended with the greatest
clearness. He expressed the opinion that the seizure could not have
been authorized from Washington, and that the matter was capable of
being amicably adjusted.
The following paragraphs taken from the general’s letter very nearly
indicate grounds which Mr. Seward assumed afterward in the settlement
of the case.
“If, under the circumstances, England should deem it her duty in the
interest of civilization to insist upon the restoration of the men
taken from under the protection of her flag, it will be, without doubt,
that the law of nations in regard to the rights of neutrals, which she
has taken a leading part in establishing, requires revision.”
“If England is disposed to do her part in stripping war of half its
horrors by accepting the policy long and persistently urged upon her
by our government, and commended by every principle of justice and
humanity, she will find no ground, in the visit of the Trent, for
controversy with our government.”
“I am sure that the president and people of the United States would be
but too happy to let these men go free, unnatural and unpardonable as
their offenses have been, if by it they could emancipate the commerce
of the world.”
A few days later the general became alarmed at the threatening state
of affairs and hastily embarked for the United States, saying that
if there was to be a war with England, perhaps he could be of some
service to his country. In the sudden departure of General Scott, the
London press found additional evidence of feelings in America hostile
to England, as, they said, he had gone home in obedience to a hasty
summons from Washington. This was not true. He returned because he
regarded it as his duty to do so.
While the excitement was so great in England, Commander Williams
suddenly became an individual of national prominence. His “protest”
against the seizure of the commissioners was everywhere applauded.
Much was made of him by the press and by various organizations. On
December 12 a public dinner was given to him by the Royal Western Yacht
Club of England. That he had evidently lost his head is apparent from
the perusal of the “braggadocio” speech made upon that occasion. He
gave such an account of the seizure of the envoys as would suit the
occasion and make a hero of himself. The following verbatim extract is
illustrative:
“Now, gentlemen, I have only one more subject that I know of on which
to speak--the circumstances attending the gallant Federal marines
rushing with the points of their bayonets at Miss Slidell. [Hear,
hear.] It was at this point that she screamed, for her father snatched
himself away from her--I do not mean snatched himself rudely, but
he snatched himself away from her to break the window of his cabin,
through which he thrust his body out. But the hole was so small that I
hardly thought it would admit the circumference of his waist. It was
then the lady screamed. I am charged by Mr. Fairfax ‘that my manner
was so violent that he was compelled to request Captain Moir to
remove me.’ [Nonsense.] But when the marines rushed on at the point of
their bayonets--and I believe it is not necessary that I should make
a solemn asseveration that it is true--[No, no]--when they rushed on
at the point of the bayonet, I had just time to put my body between
their bayonets and Miss Slidell--[oh!]--and I said to them, and if
Henry of Exeter were here I would ask him for his absolution for
it--[laughter]--I said to them, ‘Back, you d-- cowardly poltroons.’”
This ridiculous speech was believed, applauded and given a wide
circulation.
The chances of an English war with the United States caused great
excitement in Canada, and there was a general call to arms at once. The
militia were called out and volunteers were everywhere drilled with the
greatest exactness and constancy. Extra time was taken from business
for military duties, and one Canadian journal estimated that an army
of two hundred thousand men could easily be put into the field. Bodies
of regular troops were in motion from one part of the provinces to
another. Old fortifications were carefully inspected and new ones begun
along the whole Canadian frontier. Toronto and other exposed cities
were carefully looked after, and, although it was in the midst of a
severe Canadian winter, preparations were made everywhere for immediate
war.[8]
There was in England from the beginning a very feeble undercurrent of
sentiment opposed to the well-nigh universal view of the case, just
as in America the feeling of congratulation was not quite common to
every one. John Bright, than whom the United States never had a truer
or more steadfast friend, took a very conservative view of the case.
At a public dinner given at Rochdale on December 4, Mr. Bright made
a speech in which he said that he did not indorse the seizure of the
southern commissioners, but believed that it was an unauthorized act
for which sufficient reparation would be made. He thought that the
United States had evinced a great desire to be guided by wise and
moderate counsels in the construction of cases under the maritime law.
It had been asserted, Mr. Bright said, that this was one of a series of
acts showing ill-will on the part of the North, but he believed that
irritating accidents were unavoidable in a struggle like the present
one and advised his countrymen to be calm. “Let us remember,” said
he, “how we were dragged into the Russian war--we drifted into it. It
cost a hundred million pounds. It cost the lives of forty thousand
Englishmen; it injured trade; it doubled the armies of Europe, and it
did not accomplish a single thing that was promised.”
He then reminded the meeting that large numbers of English people had
recently emigrated to the Northern States, and that people bound by
such close ties could only be involved in war by misrepresentation, and
the most gross and wicked calumny. In conclusion Mr. Bright said he
prayed that in future it might not be said by the millions of freemen
in the North that in their darkest hour of need the English people,
from whom they sprung, had looked on with icy coldness on the trials
and sufferings of their terrible struggle.
There was one London newspaper which also dissented from the prevailing
view of the case. After a careful review of the whole matter, on the
first day after the news was received, the editor said he “could not
understand the fairness of excluding the Unionists from such an obvious
resort of belligerent power.”
“It would be asking too much that they should stand by and make no
effort to prevent ships conveying to and fro persons and papers on the
enemy’s service. It is at any rate to be desired that questions of this
sort should be discussed without heat and decided without haste.”[9]
Two days later the same journal said: “Our readers know that our
opinion of the affair of the Trent has not been in accordance with
that of the law officers of the crown. That opinion is unchanged.
We believe that, interpreting the code of international law in the
spirit in which that ill-digested code is laid down, Captain Wilkes
was justified in taking possession of Messrs. Mason and Slidell. We
have not, however, been so much concerned to establish that point as
to deprecate sudden and passionate action, which might lead to the
most serious complications, and we feel the greatest confidence that
our government, actuated as it is by a spirit of moderation, will be
met in a like spirit of calmness, moderation, and good sense by the
government of the United States. It would indeed be a disgrace to the
boasted civilization of the nineteenth century, if, in a disputed point
of international law, there were no other mode of obtaining a decision
than by a brutal resort to arms.”[10]
These opinions, however, were of no avail. They were given so little
consideration either by the people or the government of Great Britain
that they might just as well never have been uttered. England proposed
to settle the matter upon her own terms and without discussion, delay,
or consideration of any views but those of herself.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. British Annual Register, 1861.
2. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.
3. Magazine of American History, May, 1886.
4. Moore’s Rebellion Record: Diary, and Vol. III, Doc. 139.
5. Martin, Theodore: Life of the Prince Consort.
6. Paris, Comte de: The Civil War in America.
7. Principal London newspapers, the Times, Herald, Star, and Saturday
Review, Nov. 28-30, 1861, also first weeks of December, 1861.
8. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.
9. Weed, Thurlow; Life of, Vol. II.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, p. 368.
[2] London Times, Dec. 19, 1861.
[3] Annual Register of History, 1861, p. 254.
[4] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Vol. V, p. 347.
[5] London Times, November 28, 1861.
[6] London Times, Nov. 28, 1861.
[7] See Geo. Peabody’s letter to Thurlow Weed. Memoir of Weed, p. 365.
[8] See New York Herald’s account, Dec. 20, 1861.
[9] London Star, November 30, 1861.
[10] Editorial London Star, November 28, 1861.