APPENDIX.

“So that they may be transported and carriedin the freest mannerby the subjects of both confederates, even to places belonging to an enemy, such towns or places being only excepted as are at that time besieged, blocked up, or invested.”[102]

But the provision in the treaty with the Netherlands of 1782 is equally broad:—

“So that alleffectsand merchandises which are not expressly before named may,without any exception and in perfect liberty, be transported by the subjects and inhabitants of both allies from and to places belonging to the enemy, excepting only the places which at the same time shall be besieged, blocked, or invested; and those places only shall be held for such which are surrounded nearly by some of the belligerent powers.”[103]

If the immunity of neutral ships needed further confirmation,it would be found again in the concurring testimony of the French Government, conveyed in the recent letter of M. Thouvenel,[104]—which is so remarkable for its brief, but comprehensive, treatment of the questions involved in this controversy. I know not how others may feel, but I like to believe that this communication, when rightly understood, may be accepted as a token of friendship for us, and also as a contribution to those Maritime Rights for which France and the United States in times past have done so much together. This eminent minister does not hesitate to declare, that, if the flag of a neutral cannot completely cover persons and merchandise in a voyage between two neutral ports, then its immunity will be but a vain word.

As I conclude what I have to say on contraband in its several divisions, I venture to assert that there are two rules in regard to it which the traditional policy of our country has constantly declared, and has embodied in treaty stipulations with every power that could be persuaded to adopt them: first, that no article is contraband, unless expressly enumerated and specified as such by name; secondly, that, when such articles, so enumerated and specified, are found by the belligerent on board a neutral ship, the neutral shall be permitted to deliver them to the belligerent, whenever, by reason of bulk or quantity, such delivery is possible, and then the neutral shall, without further molestation, proceed with all remaining innocent cargo to his destination, being any port, neutral or hostile, not at the time actually blockaded.

Such was the early fixed policy of our country with regard to contraband in neutral bottoms. It is recorded in several of our earlier European treaties. Approximation to it is found in other European treaties, showing our constant effort in this direction. But this policy was not supported by the British theory and practice of International Law, especially active during the wars of the French Revolution; and to this fact may be ascribed something of the difficulty which our Government encountered in effort to secure for this liberal policy the complete sanction of European nations. But in negotiations with the Spanish-American States the theory and practice of Great Britain were less felt; and so to-day that liberal policy, embracing the two rules touching contraband, is, among all American nations, the public law, stipulated and fixed in solemn treaties. I do not quote texts, but I refer to all these treaties, beginning with the convention between the United States and Colombia in 1824. These rules, if not directly conclusive on the question of contraband, at least help to exhibit that spirit of emancipation with which our country has approached the great subject of Maritime Rights.

Of course this discussion proceeds on the assumption that the Rebels are regarded as belligerents, which is the character especially accorded by Great Britain. If they are not regarded as belligerents, then is the proceeding of Captain Wilkes indubitably illegal and void. To a political offender, however deep his guilt, though burdened with the undying execrations of all honest men, and bending beneath the consciousness of the ruin he has brought upon his country, the asylum of a foreign jurisdiction is sacred, whether on shore or sea; andit is among the proudest boasts of England, at least in recent days, that the exiles of defeated democracies, as well as of defeated dynasties, have found a sure protection beneath her meteor flag. And yet this lofty power has not always accorded to other flags what she claimed for her own. One of the objections made to any renunciation of impressment by Great Britain, at the beginning of the present century, was, “that facility would be given, particularly in the British Channel, by the immunity claimed for American vessels,to the escape of traitors”[105]: thus assuming, not only that traitors—companions of Robert Emmet, in Ireland, or companions of Horne Tooke, in England—ought to be arrested on board a neutral ship, but that impressment was needed for this purpose. This flagrant instance cannot be a precedent for the United States, which has maintained the right of asylum as firmly always as it has rejected the pretension of impressment.

If I am correct in this review, then the conclusion is inevitable. The seizure of the Rebel emissaries on board a neutral ship cannot be justified, according to declared American principles and practice. There is no single point where the seizure is not questionable, unless we invoke British precedents and practice, which, beyond doubt, led Captain Wilkes into his mistake. In the solitude of his ship he consulted familiar authorities at hand, and felt that in Vattel and Sir William Scott, as quoted by eminent writers, he had guides, while the inveterate practice of the British navy lighted his way. He was mistaken. There was a better example: it wasthe constant, uniform, unhesitating practice of his own country on the ocean, conceding always the greatest immunities to neutral ships, unless sailing to blockaded ports, refusing to consider despatches as contraband of war, refusing to consider persons other than soldiers or officers as contraband of war, and protesting always against an adjudication of personal rights by summary judgment of the quarter-deck. Had these well-attested precedents been in his mind, the gallant captain would not, even for a moment, have been seduced from allegiance to those principles which constitute part of our country’s glory.

Mr. President, let the Rebels go. Two wicked men, ungrateful to their country, with two younger confederates, are set loose with the brand of Cain upon their foreheads. Prison-doors are opened; but principles are established which will help to free other men, and to open the gates of the sea. Never before in her renowned history has Great Britain ranged herself on this side. Such an event is an epoch. “Novus sæclôrum nascitur ordo.” To the liberties of the sea this power is at last committed. To a certain extent the great cause is now under her tutelary care. If the immunities of passengers not in the military or naval service, as well as of sailors, are not directly recognized, they are at least implied; if neutral rights are not ostentatiously proclaimed, they are at least invoked; while the whole pretension of impressment, so long the pest of neutral commerce, and operating only through lawless adjudication of the quarter-deck, is made absolutely impossible. Thus is the freedom of the sea enlarged in the name of peaceful neutral rights, not only by limiting the number of personsexposed to the penalties of war, but by driving from it the most offensive pretension that ever stalked upon its waves. Farewell to kidnapping and man-stealing on the ocean! To such conclusion Great Britain is irrevocably pledged. Nor treaty nor bond is needed. It is sufficient that her late appeal can be vindicated only by renunciation of early, long-continued tyranny. Let her bear the Rebels back. The consideration is ample; for the sea became free as this altered power went forth, steering westward with the sun, on an errand of liberation.

In this surrender, if such it may be called, the National Government does not even “stoop to conquer.” It simply lifts itself to the height of its own original principles. The early efforts of its best negotiators, the patriot trials of its soldiers in an unequal war, at length prevail, and Great Britain, usually so haughty, invites us to practise upon principles which she has so strenuously opposed. There are victories of force: here is a victory of truth. If Great Britain has gained the custody of two Rebels, the United States have secured the triumph of their principles.

As this result is in conformity with our cherished history, it is superfluous to add other considerations; and yet I venture to suggest that estranged sympathies abroad may be secured again by open adhesion to principles which have the support already of Continental Europe, smarting for years under British pretensions. The powerful organs of opinion on the Continent are also with us. Hautefeuille, whose earnest work on the Law of Nations[106]is the arsenal of neutral rights, has entered into this debate with a directproposition for the release of the emissaries, as a testimony to the true interpretation of International Law. Another distinguished Frenchman, Agénor de Gasparin, whose impassioned love of liberty and enlightened devotion to our country impart to his voice all the persuasion of friendship, has made a similar appeal.[107]And a journal which of itself is an authority, theRevue des Deux Mondes, declares, in words which harmonize with what I have said to-day, that, “in disavowing a capture effected by the arbitrary initiative of a naval officer, without any of the guaranties of legal justice, without the intervention and the sanction of a Court of Admiralty, the United States, far from renouncing any of their political principles, would only render homage to the doctrine which they have ever professed on the rights of neutrals.” The same distinguished journal proceeds: “It would be in reality a true triumph for this doctrine so to apply it to the profit of a nation and of a government which have always contested or violated the rights of neutrals, but which would be henceforward constrained to the abandonment of their arbitrary pretensions by the conspicuous authority of such a precedent.”[108]

Nor is this triumph enough. The sea-god will in future use his trident less; but the same principles which led to the present renunciation of early pretensions naturally conduct to yet further emancipation of the sea. The work of maritime civilization is not finished. And here the two nations, equally endowed by commerce, and matched together, while surpassing all others, in peaceful ships, may gloriously unite in settingup new pillars, to mark new triumphs, rendering the ocean a highway of peace, instead of a bloody field.

The Congress of Paris, in 1856, where were assembled the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, has already led the way. Adopting the early policy of the United States, often proposed to foreign nations, this congress authenticated two important changes in restraint of belligerent rights: first, that the neutral flag shall protect enemy goods, except contraband of war; and, secondly, that neutral goods, except contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy’s flag. This is much. Another proposition, for the abolition of Privateering, was defective in two respects: first, because it left nations free to employ private vessels under public commission as ships of the navy, and therefore was nugatory; and, secondly, because, if not nugatory, it was too obviously in the special interest of Great Britain, which, through her commanding navy, would be left at will to rule the sea. No change can be practicable which is not equal in advantage to all nations; for the Equality of Nations is not a dry dogma merely of International Law, but a vital sentiment common to all. This cannot be overlooked; and every proposition must be brought sincerely to its equitable test.

There is a way in which privateering may be effectively abolished without shock to the Equality of Nations. A simple proposition, assuring private property on the ocean the same immunity it now enjoys on land, will at once abolish privateering, and relieve commerce on the ocean from its greatest perils, so that, like commerce on land, it will be undisturbed, except by illegal robbery and theft. Such a proposition mustoperate for the equal advantage of all. On this account, and in the policy of peace, always cultivated by our Republic, it has been already presented to other nations. You have not forgotten the important paper in which Mr. Marcy did this service,[109]and the favor it found with European powers, always excepting Great Britain, whose opposition was too potential. But this vast cause was never commended with more force than by John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, when, in a masterly despatch, he declared that “private war, banished by the tacit and general consent of Christian nations from their territories, has taken its last refuge upon the ocean, and there continues to disgrace and afflict them by a system of licensed robbery, bearing all the most atrocious characters of piracy.”[110]The Governments of Europe were invited to enter into conventions by which “all warfare against private property upon the sea is disclaimed and renounced,” and at the same time the final suppression of the slave-trade assured, so that the freedom of the sea was associated with the freedom of men.[111]In the same humane interest, Henry Clay, as Secretary of State, invited Great Britain “to agree to the abolition of privateering, and no longer to consider private property on the high seas as lawful prize of war.”[112]In such a cause the effort alone was noble.

To complete the efficacy of this reform, closing thegate against belligerent pretensions, Contraband of War should be abolished, so that all ships may navigate the ocean freely, without peril or detention from the character of persons or things on board: and here I only follow the Administration of Washington, enjoining upon John Jay, in his negotiation with England, to seek security for neutral commerce, particularly “by abolishing contrabandaltogether.”[113]The Right of Search, which, on outbreak of war, becomes an omnipresent tyranny, subjecting every neutral ship to the arbitrary invasion of every belligerent cruiser, would then disappear. It would drop, as the chains from an emancipated slave; or rather, it would exist only as an occasional agent, under solemn treaties, in the war waged by civilization against the slave-trade; and then it would be proudly recognized as an honorable surrender to the best interests of humanity, glorifying the flag which made it.

With the consummation of these reforms in Maritime Law, war will be despoiled of its most vexatious prerogatives, while innocent neutrals are exempt from its torments. One step further is needed to complete this exemption. Commercial Blockade must be abandoned; for, while its first effects are naturally felt by the belligerent against whom directed, it soon acts with kindred hardship upon all neutrals, near or remote, whose customary commerce is interrupted,—so that the blockade of an American port may cause distress in Liverpool and Manchester, in Lyons and Marseilles, scarcely less than if these great cities were under pressure of a blockading squadron. Neutrals, it is said, must notrelieve belligerents, and therefore blockade is effectively a two-edged sword, wounding belligerents on the one side and neutrals on the other side,—often, indeed, wounding neutrals as much as belligerents. If not designedly so, it becomes thus mischievous from the essential vice of its character. Blockade may be called the elephant of naval warfare, as destructive, often, to friends as to foes. So palpable is this becoming, that it is doubtful if neutrals will much longer allow such backhanded agency, smiting the innocent as well as the guilty, to continue under sanction of International Law. Its extinction is needed to complete the triumph of Neutral Rights.[114]

Such a change, just in proportion to its accomplishment, will be a blessing to mankind, inconceivable in grandeur. The statutes of the sea, thus refined and elevated, will be agents of peace instead of agents of war. Ships and cargoes will pass unchallenged from shore to shore, and those terrible belligerent rights under which the commerce of the world has so long suffered will cease from troubling. In this work our country began early. Hardly had we proclaimed our own independence, before we sought to secure a similar independence for the sea. Hardly had we made a constitution for our own government, before we sought to establish a constitution similar in spirit for the government of the sea. If not prevailing promptly, it was because we could not overcome the unyielding resistance of Great Britain. And now, behold, this champion of belligerent rights has “changed his hand and checked his pride.” Welcome tothe new-found alliance! Welcome to the peaceful transfiguration! Meanwhile, through all present excitements, amidst all trials, beneath all threatening clouds, it only remains for us to uphold the perpetual policy of the Republic, and to stand fast on the ancient ways.

The reception of this speech revealed the interest of the question, which was not inferior to that of Slavery. The auditory at its delivery, the expressions of the public press, the sensation in England, and letters from all quarters were as instructive as complimentary. Among our own countrymen at home and abroad the satisfaction was general. The people were against war with England, and they were glad to learn that by surrender of the Rebels Maritime Rights had obtained new safeguard, while the British pretext for war was removed.The scene at the delivery was described by the leading journals.The correspondent of theNew York Tribunetelegraphed briefly, but emphatically.“Senator Sumner’s speech was felt to be exhaustive of the Law of Nations which governed the case of the Trent, and is already ranked in Washington as a state paper upon the question of seizure and search worthy to be placed side by side with the despatches of Madison and Jefferson. It was delivered to a thronged and charmed Senate.”The correspondent of theNew York Heraldtelegraphed more at length.“The speech was impressively delivered. The galleries of the Senate were densely crowded. Notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, the ladies’ gallery was filled to overflowing. Mrs. Vice-President Hamlin and a party of her friends occupied seats in the diplomatic gallery, which was also filled. Secretaries Chase and Cameron occupied seats on the floor of the Chamber, where were also the French, Russian, Austrian, Prussian, Danish, and Swedish ministers. Lord Lyons was not present, as etiquette required that he should not be there on such an occasion. The speech was listened to with fixed attention by Senators Bright and Powell and ex-Senator Green. M. Mercier, the French minister, occupied a seat next to Mr. Bright, and exchanged salutations with Mr. Sumner at the conclusion of the speech, as did also most of the other foreign dignitaries.“Mr. Sumner’s speech has created a marked impression on the public in regard to himself. It has removed much prejudice that existed againsthim, and added greatly to his reputation as a profound statesman. The impression prevailed, that, with all his learning, his extraordinary acquirements, and splendid talents, he could not avoid the introduction of his peculiar views in reference to Slavery; and on account of the strong Antislavery proclivities of England hitherto, and the sympathy heretofore from this cause existing between leading English politicians and our own Antislavery men of Mr. Sumner’s class, it was apprehended by many that he would be inclined to lean towards Great Britain in this controversy. His course to-day was, therefore, an agreeable surprise. The absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question demonstrated his ability and willingness to rise superior to the one idea attributed to him, and the scathing exposition of British inconsistency in regard to the right of search, and the dignified rebuke he administered to England, exhibited his capacity to regard public affairs with the eye of a genuine statesman.“The applause accorded to this really great production is universal and unqualified.”The correspondent of theNew York Evening Postgives the following sketch of the scene in a letter.“In spite of the fog, rain, and mud of this morning, the galleries of the Senate Chamber began to fill at an early hour. In addition to the lounginghabituésof the daily sessions, came a crowd which left them no room to lounge. You have only to advertise a speech, and how the life-tide sets towards the Capitol! Mr. Sumner’s splendid oratory always attracts immense audiences, even when his speeches bear upon the unpopular subject of Slavery.“Most people seemed to think that he was the slave of this one idea, and could only be great when mounted on his hobby. But in his master speech on the Trent affair and its relation to Maritime and International Law he has proved himself to be something more than the accomplished scholar, the eloquent speech-maker, forcing the recognition of his statesmanship from the very mouths of his enemies. This exposition of the triumph of American principles, necessarily less ornate than his more literary productions, is marked by all his usual fastidious strength of style. Vibrating through his voice, every word seemed a live nerve quivering with electric meaning.“A speech so kind and calm in rebuke, so elaborate in research, so bountiful in proof, so conclusive in argument, coming from the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and an acknowledged favorite of England, will appeal with strong conviction to her people. Here in Washington its praise is on every tongue. In the dense crowd of the gallery General Fremont was conspicuous, and among the Abolitionists of the audience were the Rev. John Pierpont and Rev. Dr. Channing of the new Antislavery church. The French, Danish, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, and Spanish ministers, with Secretaries Chase and Cameron, sat in groups in the Senate Chamber, amid the eagerly listening Senators. The last is a special item; for I observe, as an every-day habit, that these distinguished gentlemen do not pay very marked attention to each other’s speeches. In the crimson diplomatic gallery sat the daughter and wife of Vice-President Hamlin.”The editorial judgments were in harmony with the reports of correspondents.TheNational Intelligencer, at Washington, which had not inclined to Mr. Sumner on Slavery, said:—“We give to-day, in consideration of the current interest attaching to its subject, and, we may add, because of its great ability, the speech delivered yesterday by Mr. Sumner in the Senate of the United States on the question of International Law raised by the arrest of Messrs. Mason and Slidell.“Singularly qualified for this discussion by his erudition as a jurist and as a student of history, besides being called by his position as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate to give to the subject that mature consideration it deserves, Mr. Sumner has brought to its treatment an affluence of illustration and authority, derived from the most cherished traditions of American diplomacy, for the purpose of showing that the decision to which our Government has come in the premises may be rested on a broader foundation than that which was sufficient to cover the ground of the British reclamation against the act of Captain Wilkes.”L’Eco d’Italia, an Italian paper in New York, took this occasion to pay a warm tribute to Mr. Sumner, and his moderation of conduct.“Nobody had better right to speak with knowledge and authority than the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, and as a man rather extreme in his ideas of personal independence.”Then complimenting him on his knowledge of French and Italian, his admiration of Italian literature, and his ardent love of Italy, this journal says:—“Sumner, from the beginning of his political career, showed himself the decided enemy of Slavery, and was marked by the opposite party as an Abolitionist, which was equivalent to subverter of public order, robber, and worse. In the midst of the greatest difficulties he kept himself constant always.… Now that the movement has commenced, Sumner, instead of throwing wood on the fire, which already burns too much, shows all the prudence and sagacity of a true statesman.”TheWorld, in New York, said:—“The carefully prepared speech which Mr. Sumner delivered in the Senate yesterday is an important contribution to the stock of current information on an important question of public law. The arrest of Mason and Slidell has not before been discussed with so much breadth of research. Mr. Sumner’s luminous speech is a remarkable example of the advantage ofhistorical knowledge in the discussion of public questions.…“It is creditable to Mr. Sumner that he has been able to present so conclusive an historical argument in opposition to the view of this subject taken by legists and publicists so able and erudite as Mr. Everett, Mr. Cushing, Professor Parsons, and Chief-Justice Bigelow, of his own State, and most of the public journals in all parts of the country. The error of these writers has consisted in an undue deference to the British admiralty decisions,—decisions against whose validity on the points involved in this controversy our Government has always protested.“Mr. Sumner’s argument plainly sustains Mr. Seward in his surrender of the Rebel commissioners, but not in his delaying to do so till they were demanded by the English Government. The thanks of the country are due to Mr. Sumner for his convincing argument that the national honor has suffered no detriment by their surrender.”TheNew York Commercial Advertisersaid:—“Mr. Sumner gives, within limits as brief as the nature of the case would permit, the arguments which influenced the Committee after a laborious investigation of the point in dispute. He performs this duty in a temperate, lucid, and convincing manner, rising above all asperity or excitement, and viewing the question as it affects the best interests of the human race. At the same time he has steered almost entirely clear of the track marked out by Secretary Seward, the great body of his argument being drawn from events and precedents in the history of our own country.… We take the greater pleasure in referring to the elaborate arguments brought forward by Senator Sumner, inasmuch as certain parties seem to think that Secretary Seward’s able reply to Lord Lyons on this subject was nothing but a graceful backing down before superior force,—that he strove to hunt up precedents on behalf of a position which was in fact defensible only because our Government could not accept the gauntlet thrown down by that of Great Britain. No unprejudiced person, we think, can peruse Mr. Sumner’s speech without arriving at a different conclusion. It should rather be an occasion for national congratulation than humiliation, that Great Britain has,de facto, abandoned her old ground, and planted herself on doctrines and practice strictly, and for a time almost exclusively, American.”TheBurlington Daily Times, of Vermont, said:—“We have not room to print the elaborate and convincing argument of Senator Sumner on the seizure of the Rebel emissaries, Mason and Slidell. Notwithstanding all that has been said, it is fresh and original, and is a complete vindication of the course of the Administration in promptly restoring the seized persons to the British Government. It cannot remove the animosities which the course of England has kindled among Americans; but it cannot fail to heal the galled sense of wounded national honor, because it is shown by the argument that it has not been wounded at all,—that the feeling of shame and dishonor which has been experienced has been resting on imaginary and false grounds.”TheBoston Transcriptsaid:—“Fortunately for Mr. Sumner, events have arisen which have enabled him to demonstrate that he is not ridden by one idea. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the most important post that a Senator of the United States can hold in the present emergency of the nation, he has shown talents and acquirements which every fair mind cannot but appreciate. The ‘inevitable negro’ is banished from this arena, and the country has been astonished by the solidity of Mr. Sumner’s learning, the amplitude of his understanding, and the sagacity of his judgment on all the vital questions which have arisen in his special department. His speech on the affair of the Trent is a masterpiece. He goes beyond all the precedents of the conservative lawyers of New England, and all the arguments of the Secretary of State, to the essential principles of International Law, as recognized by the great thinkers and statesmen of the Continent of Europe, and as contended for by our own Government. He, the man who has most cause to hate Slidell and Mason, and who, from his Abolitionist proclivities, would be most opposed to delivering them up, is found to exceed even Mr. Seward in his desire to establish the rights of neutrals and ignore the passions of the hour.”TheNorfolk County Journalsaid:—“It is a work of supererogation to say one word in its praise. Public opinion has already stamped it as one of the great speeches of the present generation of American statesmen. In the acquaintance which it displays with International Law, the impregnability of its argument, the classic finish of its diction, and the statesmanlike temper which it brings to the discussion, it has gained for its author new honors, and done much to counteract a prejudice against our Senator which too many had mistakenly allowed to possess their minds.”TheHaverhill Publishersaid:—“The late speech of the Senator on the Trent affair is one of the ablest state papers that have appeared in this country for years, and will have a powerful influence upon the English mind in settling the present disturbed state of feeling, and also in securing the practical acknowledgment of a great principle in International Law. Those who have found the most fault of late with Mr. Sumner for his efforts to keep fresh before the country the cause of our present disaster, as an important thing to be considered, while struggling for relief, are now among the first to do him honor for his unanswerable argument upon the Trent Question, and the principle involved. In the end, the country and the world will as fully agree with him, practically, upon the question of Slavery. No man can more truly be said to be the man for the hour than can Senator Sumner.”TheSalem Gazettesaid:—“It is a pleasure to accord to Senator Sumner the approval of his most judicious course on the same subject. We take the more pleasure in this approval, because it has often been our fortune to differ with Mr. Sumner in regard to the treatment of some of the most important questions before the country. But in regard to our foreign relations, holding as he does the responsible position of Chairman of the Senate Committee on that subject, we confide in him as a safe, wise, and thoroughly well-informed guide.”These are illustrations of the American press. Very different was that of London, so far as it spoke. One of our countrymen, then abroad, and closely observing the manifestations of opinion, remarked that the speech was attacked, but not reprinted.“The excellence of any such effort is to be measured now in this country only by the amount of attack it calls out, and I was therefore much pleased to see that theTimeslost its temper in criticizing you. It is a significant fact, that neither it nor any of its allies have ventured to reprint the speech. They confine themselves to a style of criticism that I should call blackguard, against you, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Everett.”In contrast with the prevailing tone was the London Peace Society, which, in its Annual Report, spoke of the speech.“They felt it right to reprint the very able speech delivered by Mr. Charles Sumner on the affair of the Trent, because, while explicitly surrendering every right on the part of the American Government, as respects that transaction, he does so on such broad principles as in the judgment of the Committee it would be greatly to the advantage of all civilized states to adopt and act upon in their relations with each other. Copies of this pamphlet were sent to all Members of Parliament, and to a large number of newspapers and periodicals throughout the kingdom.”[115]The character of the attack by theTimeswill be seen by a few passages from a leader, January 25, 1862.“The last mail has brought us another attempt, made in a speech five columns long by Mr. Charles Sumner in the American Senate. This gentleman is, perhaps, the one American who has been most petted and fêted over here. Mr. Charles Sumner was the greatest drawing-room lion of his day, and his mane was combed by a thousand delicate hands, often held up in admiration at his gentle roarings. In America he has arrived at the high distinction of Senator for Massachusetts and Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs; but after the very general hilarity throughout Europe caused by Mr. Seward’s diplomaticfiasco, it seems to have been thought necessary to put some one forward to make ‘a scathing exposition of British inconsistency,’ and to show what a victory over the old country had been obtained. So Charles Sumner is the man.… Mr. Sumner has not done his work ill. But then he had peculiar facilities for it. ‘Who best hasknown them can abuse them best.’ Moreover, his audience at Washington was not difficult. Gentlemen who could congratulate themselves on Bull Run required no cogent reasons for seeing a glorious triumph, first in the seizure of the Trent, and then in the compulsory surrender of the prize.… No wonder, then, that Mr. Charles Sumner’s speech in the Senate has been a great success. We are told that all the foreign ambassadors—except only Lord Lyons, whom nothing but severe diplomatic etiquette kept away—came round him and congratulated him; and that after its delivery, ‘our respected mother, England,’ is ‘left out in the cold,’—whatever that may mean. The two points which seem especially to have been admired are, first, ‘the absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question,’—showing that he is by no means so obstinate upon that matter as had been feared,—and, second, ‘the signal rebuke he administered to England.’ We can go some way with Mr. Sumner’s encomiasts in this admiration. It at least shows a versatile and cosmopolitan mind. His ‘allusions to the Negro Question’ are evidently only absent from his Washington speeches because they are kept entirely for English use, and are not fitted for home consumption; whereas the ‘rebukes’ are manufactured expressly for the American market, and are never offered for acceptance on this side of the Atlantic.… It is of no great consequence to us what clouds of dust American statesmen may choose to raise in order to escape from their difficulty. Now that they have eaten the leek, they may declare, if they please, that it was exquisite in its flavor, and had been presented to them as a mark of honor.…“The case of the Trent has not made any new precedent whatever, nor can it clash with any precedent upon which in modern times we ever did or could have intended to rely. The forcible removal of those four men from under the British flag was a rude outrage, redeemed neither by precedent nor principle, and it has been resented and repaired. If all the Federal Senate make set speeches till doomsday, they can make no more of it.”In the course of its objurgations, theTimesseeks to repel the parallel between the taking by Captain Wilkes and the taking of American citizens by British cruisers, and here it asserts:—“In the current number of theQuarterly Reviewit is conclusively shown that only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’ were taken by our cruisers out of American ships in the year preceding the war of 1812.”[116]“Only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’”! Lord Castlereagh, in the House of Commons, immediately after the breaking out of the war, admitted that there were in the British fleet three thousand five hundred men “who claimed to be American subjects.”[117]TheTimesperhaps intended “only two men” really American. But here is strangeand total oblivion of the fact, that, in every case of taking, whether the victim was American or not, whether two or two hundred were seized, there was an exercise of the very prerogative it condemned in Captain Wilkes, although he had an excuse beyond that of any British cruiser.This leader of theTimeswas followed by an article, dated at the Temple, January 28, from its famous correspondent “Historicus,” known to be Mr. Vernon Harcourt, a writer of admirable power on questions of International Law, and afterwards a distinguished member of Parliament. In this article the same spirit appeared, with the same personality, and the same hardihood of assertion. Beginning with elaborate flings at Mr. George Sumner, where the causticity is reinforced fromMartin Chuzzlewit, he comes to the Senator, and, in the tone already adopted by theTimes, refers to his reception in London: “It would be scarcely too much to say, that, for a single season, Mr. Charles Sumner enjoyed a social success almost equal to that of the ‘Black Sam’ himself. He was regarded as ‘a man and a brother,’ and he could not have been better treated, if he had had real black blood in his veins.” This is to prepare for what follows.“It is impossible adequately to describe the ‘threat speech’ in the Senate, except by saying that Charles, if possible, out-Sumners George. The great object of this remarkable oration is to prove that the surrender of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a great triumph for the American Government. There is, proverbially, no accounting for taste; and if the American people are of Mr. Sumner’s opinion, I do not see why we should complain of their contentment. Some people, like Uriah Heep, are ‘very ’umble,’ and their meekness is an edifying spectacle. We demanded the restoration of the prisoners, not in order to mortify the American people, but for the purpose of vindicating the honor of our flag and asserting the established principles of Maritime Law.”In exposing Mr. Sumner’s misfeasance, the writer proceeds:—“As if to make the absurdity of his position more conspicuous, Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch. He has even the incredible audacity (if it be not, indeed, an ignorance hardly less credible) to pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the pretension to treat Messrs. Slidell and Mason as ‘contraband of war.’”This is followed by an extract from M. Hautefeuille, declaring that a neutral ship, destined for a neutral port, is not subject to seizure.This passage shows that the writer had in mind something very different from the speech he criticized. Mr. Sumner nowhere alludes to Mr. Seward’s despatch, much less does he invoke the sympathies of Continental Europe for its doctrines. Nor does he pledge the authorityof M. Hautefeuille in support of the pretension to treat the Rebel agents as contraband of war; on the contrary, he mentioned M. Hautefeuille as having “entered into this debate with a direct proposition for the release of the emissaries as a testimony to the true interpretation of International Law,”[118]and himself insists upon the very doctrine of the French publicist. Plainly, therefore, the writer dealt hard words at Mr. Sumner, mistaking him for somebody else.Then comes another misapprehension.“I know not whether, in the hazy muddle of a confused intelligence, Mr. Sumner has figured to himself that the seizure of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a parallel case to the instances of impressment of seamen out of which grew the war of 1812. Yet men of less pretensions than the ‘Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations’ ought to be aware that the cases are not only not the same, but not even similar. Their resemblance, at most, extends to the proverbial identity of chalk and cheese.”Evidently the writer had not read the opinion of the law officers, individualizing the point, that “from on board a merchant ship of a neutral power, pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage, certain individuals have been taken by force,”[119]which was the precise point so often urged by the United States against impressment.Then follow the general condemnation and counterblast.“It is impossible to read such performances as the ‘Great Speech of the Hon. C. Sumner’ without drawing a gloomy augury for the future of a nation among whom such a man can occupy a chief place. In all the symptoms of decadence which the recent history of the American Republic exhibits, there is none more conspicuous and apparently more irreparable than the decline in capacity and character of her public men. The men bred under the shadow of the English colonial system were of a very different stamp from the race which progressive Democracy has spawned for itself.…“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of impotent violence and furious incapacity.”In the volume of Historicus,[120]much of which constitutes a valuable contribution to International Law, this effusion is abridged and modified. Some things are left out, and others are changed. Generally the personalitiesare mitigated. Thus, the original caption, “The Brothers Sumner on International Law,” is turned into “Letter on Mr. Sumner’s Speech,” and “the hazy muddle of a confused intelligence” is softened into “a confusion of mind” attributed to Mr. Sumner; but the article is introduced by words describing the speech as “professingto expound and to maintain the doctrines of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” and it repeats the allegation that “Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” whereas, in fact, he never professed or did any such thing. It would be pleasant to forget that an article of such a character was ever written; nor would it be mentioned here, if it did not throw important light—and not to be neglected—on the general tone of the British press and its unfounded conduct towards our Republic at a critical moment.Contemporary letters from countrymen abroad tell how they were impressed.At home, persons in all conditions—statesmen, judges, lawyers, clergymen, authors, citizens—made haste to express gratification and sympathy. This copious correspondence evinces the intensity and extent of the prevailing sentiment, which can be learned in no other way. Thus it illustrates an important chapter of history.A letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., District Attorney of the United States at Boston, and afterwards the annotator of Wheaton’s “Elements of International Law,” an able publicist, full of good feeling for England, though written at Boston, may be introduced here, as it bears especially upon the conduct of England and the English press.“Permit me to say that I am glad to see the LondonTimes’attack on you and your Trent speech. It will make you feel to the quick—what you did not seem to feel, or refused to admit—theinsolenttone of the British press and public men towards us in our struggle for life, and the false manner in which they have tried to turn this case to our national ruin. Those few semi-republican, semi-abolition, liberally inclined men in England, whom you respect, and who command, perhaps, one paper and one monthly, are a drop in the bucket. The ruling class in England is determined to sever this Republic, and all its pent-up jealousy, arrogance, and superciliousness are breaking out stronger and stronger.“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of this case, because they know, that, properly understood, they would not support the hostile feeling against this country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced to know that you feel this.“I have had a letter from England, from a high source, which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc., but says, “No paper has dared to publishit,” and speaks of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it apparent that it is read.“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it has cost him his favor in England.’“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in them. They arethe best omen for youthat I have seen.”Hon. George R. Russell, an excellent citizen of Boston, travelling in Europe, wrote from Florence:—“TheTimeshas come down on you, and has failed. It has the usual bitterness, but the power is wanting.”Hon. James E. Harvey, Minister Resident at Lisbon, wrote:—“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair, and cannot refrain from expressing my thanks for its able and conclusive vindication of the position of our Government on that subject. If any reasoning can reconcile the American mind to the restitution of the two emissaries to British protection, your arguments and the calm and convincing presentation of facts must do it. What you have said of Hautefeuille might be justly applied to this statesmanlike production, which, in comprehension and in logical connection, is a state paper.”Hon. Bradford R. Wood, Minister Resident at Copenhagen, wrote:—“I thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights, just received, and which I have carefully read. All my assertions that the Trent affair would not lead to war were received here with incredulity, by the Government, by my colleagues, by all parties. It was a bitter disappointment to some of the English here, and I doubt not in England, that this matter has been settled without war. The LondonTimes, while criticizing your speech and denying its conclusions, writhes under it, and its arguments are a severer rebuke to England than any philippics or denunciations could be.”William S. Thayer, Consul-General at Alexandria, wrote from his post:—“I lent Mr. Buckle[121]theIntelligencerwith your speech on the Trent affair, some points of which received his emphatic indorsement.”Hon. John Bigelow, Consul at Paris, and afterwards Minister there, wrote from Paris:—“It produced an excellent effect here, and still better in England, if one may judge by the ill-humor in which it put theTimes. The impotent venom of that journal, under the circumstances, was more complimentary than its praise could have been.”Henry Woods, the Parisian member of the American importing house of Messrs. C. F. Hovey & Co., wrote from Paris:—“I have to thank you for a copy of your very able speech on the Trent affair, which has been very much read, and in all quarters I hear it spoken of with admiration. It is considered your greatest effort, and worthy of a great occasion.”Professor Charles D. Cleveland, author and Abolitionist, Consul at Cardiff, Wales, wrote:—“How my heart rejoices that the affair of the Trent is thus amicably settled! but—and Imustsay so—I have little faith in the good feeling of the Government of England, and the leading influences here, towards our country. How indignant have I felt the last six weeks at the tone of the leading papers towards our country! Nothing, hardly, could exceed the bitterness of theTimes, thePost, theTelegraph, theSaturday Review, &c., &c. EvenPunchlent all his influence to the Rebels, and against us. The very first number after the news of the Trent affair was received had a full-length figure of Britannia standing beside a cannon, with a match in her hand, looking across the water, and underneath was written, ‘Waiting for an Answer.’“True, the religious public, or rather the Dissenters, have shown right feelings; and I wrote letters of thanks to Dr. Newman Hall and to Mr. Spurgeon for what they had done, and received very kind answers; but very few of the Church Establishment have shown right feelings.“I was always the friend of England, and few have written or spoken more in commendation of her; but I must in truth say that my feelings have changed since I have been here. England would rejoice to-day to see our country divided. She sees our growing greatness, and envies and fears it.”In close connection with letters from abroad is that of E. Littell, founder and editor of theLiving Age, close student of the English press, and warmly attached to England, who wrote from Boston:—“Allow me to congratulate you upon the speech on the Trent affair. ‘They of the contrary part,’ even, ‘cannot gainsay it.’“After feeling so deeply the almost unbroken attitude of the London press as to be forced to think and say that I must give up my love for England (which was a part of my inmost heart), I have reverted to her again, pleading that that press does not represent either her people or her Government.”Hon. Henry L. Dawes, the eminent Representative in Congress, wrote:—“I congratulate you on your great effort to-day. It was worthy of you. I regret I could not hear it all. But I shall have the greater pleasure in reading it.”Hon. Hamilton Fish, afterwards Secretary of State, wrote from New York:—“Exactlyright; you have done justice to the question, the country, its history, its policy, and its late action. On such ground as you have placed the subject we stand proudly before the world.…“It should be circulated largely in England, among the class who will read it. The British press will not publish it in full, unless you can bring, through some of your friends, an influence to bear. Cannot you do so?”Hon. N. P. Talmadge, former Senator of the United States from New York, wrote from Georgetown, District of Columbia:—“I have just read with great pleasure your very able speech in regard to Messrs. Mason and Slidell and the recent affair of the Trent. Coming in support of the lucid and able reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, it places the matter before the American people and all Europe in a light as clear as a sunbeam.“It seems to me that England, in the excitement of the moment, and with the sudden impulse of redressing a fancied wrong, has not foreseen the inevitable result to which her own action has brought her. She may attempt hereafter, as occasion may require, to evade the consequences by saying that the law officers of the crown decided that the wrong consisted in not taking the Trent into port for the adjudication of a Prize Court, and therefore that was the only point involved. She will find, however, that not only the United States, but France, and all Europe, will hold her to the consequences which you have so clearly demonstrated flow from her own action.“Mr. Seward’s reply to Lord Lyons, and your speech, will settle this whole question with the American people. If their judgments are satisfied, they cheerfully acquiesce, no matter how high their passions may have been wrought against these Rebels, nor how strong their desire to keep possession of them. I believe there is not a loyal press that has not acquiesced in the decision of the Administration. How proudly all this contrasts with the predictions of Dr. Russell, the correspondent of the LondonTimes, that, if these men were given up, the Government would be dissolved and destroyed by the mob! This will show England that a British ministry have much more to fear from her mobs than the Administration of this Government have to fear from our people.”Hon. Julius Rockwell, the Judge, and former Senator of the United States, with lifelong experience, political and judicial, wrote from Pittsfield, Massachusetts:—“The public opinion, as far as I know it here, is in accordance with the positions set forth in your speech, and your speech will tend to illustrate and render it more general. Still, some are unsatisfied, and there is a general, I may say, almost universal, accession of dissatisfaction with the conduct and character of England. This feeling just now pervades our people, crops out in all lectures, and in many sermons, and some prayers.”Hon. Daniel Ullmann, prominent in the politics of New York, and a General in the war, wrote from his head-quarters:—“You will greatly oblige me by sending to my address a pamphlet copy of your great speech on the ‘Trent affair.’ I desire it in that form for preservation.”Hon. James Duane Doty, Governor of Utah, and former Representative in Congress, wrote from Salt Lake City:—“Far, far from you, on the top of the Rocky Mountains, I have just held communion with you by a perusal of your able, eloquent, and conclusive speech on the Trent affair, as reported in theHeraldof the 10th January, which has just reached us. Surely no nation was ever put in a more absurd position than you have placed England, and if she is satisfied with the possession of the Rebels (whom, I am glad to notice, you have not named), we ought to be gratified; for it avoids a quarrel at an inconvenient time, and allays public feeling, which was becoming much excited. These two worthless Rebels could not have been put to a better use.”Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, afterwards Minister at Constantinople, wrote from West Chester, Pennsylvania:—“I cannot refrain from expressing to you the personal obligation I feel for your last great speech. Its wise candor and its steadfast adherence to the landmarks of maritime freedom cannot fail to make a profound impression upon the liberal minds of Europe; while disclaiming the thought of her dishonor, you have lifted the Republic to the heights of a beneficent victory.”Hon. B. C. Clark, merchant, and Consul for Hayti, wrote from Boston:—“Your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter has won, most justly, golden opinions from all sorts of people. The affair has been put to rest, but simply on legal grounds.… The Trent will tell more terribly upon England than the ghost of Cæsar upon Brutus at Philippi.”Hon. George T. Bigelow, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:—“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with very great pleasure. It is an admirable exposition of the doctrine which England has so long held on the subject of neutral rights; and while it demonstrates that the act of Captain Wilkes might have been justified on English practice and precedents, it places in the most clear light that it was inconsistent with the position which our Government has always occupied on the subject of search and seizure. The tone of the speech is so quiet and dignified, that it will have the effect, I think, of a severe rebuke on the hasty and unjustifiable conduct of the English Cabinet in demanding a reparation and a surrender of the captives with warlike menaces and preparations.“The prevailing sentiment here, especially among those who have not heretofore been inclined to speak your praise, is one of commendation of your speech. I am rejoiced that you have been able, while vindicating the course of the Administration in making the surrender of Mason and Slidell, to add so much to your reputation as a statesman.”Hon. Theophilus Parsons, the eminent law-writer and law-professor, wrote from Cambridge:—“I have read and studied your speech, and am really unwilling to repeat to you what I have said in commendation of it to others.“This question may be considered after the fashion of a lawyer, or a politician, or a statesman.“You have viewed it as a statesman, and, in my understanding of the word, that includes the other two, and elevates them both.“The affair has given rise to no paper so entirely satisfactory to me, nor to one calculated, in my judgment, to be so truly and permanently useful.”Hon. Emory Washburn, Professor at the Law School, and former Governor of Massachusetts, wrote:—“I cannot forbear expressing my satisfaction in reading your speech in the Senate on the Trent affair. It seems to me to place the matter on the true ground; and if the English Government do not find, when they come to look coolly at the matter, that in taking Mason and Slidell they have caught two Tartars, I shall be greatly mistaken. I think, moreover, you have spoken the sober, sound thought of the country; and while they are indignant at the inconsistent annoyance of the ministry and the press of England, they feel that the course taken is not only the wise and expedient one, but, on the whole, the most consistent.”Hon. John H. Clifford, former Attorney-General of Massachusetts, and Governor, wrote from Boston:—“I have read with unqualified approval and satisfaction your admirable exposition of the interesting questions of public law in your recent speech, growing out of the arrest and rendition of the ‘two old men’ taken from the Trent. I trust its treatment of the doctrine of Maritime Rights will command on the other side of the water the respect to which it is so justly entitled, and of which its reception by the best minds at home gives a hopeful assurance.”Hon. John C. Gray, a venerable and accomplished citizen, wrote from Boston:—“I return you my acknowledgments for your speech on the Mason and Slidell affair. The more I have examined the law,—and I regret that I did not do it earlier,—the more I am satisfied that our civilians here were mistaken in their first impressions.”Hon. George S. Hale, lawyer, wrote from Boston:—“Permit me to congratulate you on your late speech in the Senate. I am not unfamiliar with your speeches, and feel great pleasure in saying thatnone has ever, in my opinion, so strengthened your position as a statesman; none has been more happy, more effective, or more generally satisfactory to your constituents.“Without calling up any of those questions upon which many of them have differed from you, you have done much to contribute to public peace, and aided well, under peculiarly difficult circumstances, in placing the country in an honorable position before the world.”Hon. Charles P. Huntington, late Judge of the Superior Court for Suffolk County, wrote:—“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with more satisfaction than anything that has yet been uttered on the subject, and as placing the merits of the question on the most satisfactory and statesmanlike ground.”Rev. Theodore D. Woolsey, the excellent President of Yale College, and author of a work on International Law, wrote from New Haven:—“Having just read with great pleasure your speech on the Trent case, as given in theTribuneof yesterday, I feel moved to express to you my satisfaction that you have given the affair such a shape, and have tacitly exposed some of Mr. Seward’s errors.”Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New York:—“Accept my congratulations on your very able speech on the Trent matter. It will rather surprise your friends in England.”Hon. John M. Read, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, wrote from Philadelphia:—“I was very much gratified in reading your very able, temperate, and forcible speech on the Trent affair.”Then, in a second letter, the same judicial authority wrote:—“It is the very best discussion of the whole subject that I have seen.”Hon. Francis Brockholst Cutting, former Representative in Congress from New York, and a leader of the bar, wrote from New York:—“Your speech on Maritime Rights has given me very great satisfaction. It was worthy of your reputation, and equal to the occasion. The argument was particularly gratifying to me, because, from the outset, I had looked at the case from the American point of view, and had expressed myself accordingly.”Hon. R. J. Meigs, of Tennessee, for a long time eminent at the bar and in juridical study, wrote from New York:—“One word more. I thank you for your speech upon the Trent affair. It vindicates the honor of our baited and abused country. It will be a well-remembered document in the diplomacy of the world, settling as it does forever the immunity of neutrals from the insulting pretension of the right to seize persons on their ships merely upon the ground that they owe allegiance to the belligerent. It effectually extracts that poisonous fang from the jaws of Leviathan.”Hon. David Roberts, lawyer, and author of a “Treatise on Admiralty and Prize,” wrote from Salem:—“I deem it your best effort, settling, what to me was from the firsttheembarrassing element in the Wilkes question,a true Americandefinition of ‘despatches.’“I therefore thank you for the speech sincerely; and though differingtoto cœlofrom you politically in other respects, I shall not withhold my commendation from your present effort, deeming it, as I do, the paramount duty of all to inculcate the lesson of loyalty everywhere, until this Government is vindicated, and the existing Rebellion suppressed.”Hon. George Wheatland, lawyer, wrote from Salem:—“Allow me, for the first time of ever addressing you, to thank you for your masterly statement of the Trent matter, which I have just risen from reading in theBoston Journal.“You have put the matter in its true light.…“Your speech will shed light, and, in fact, illuminate the whole subject, and should be read by every one. By taking Mason & Co. we were acting on the English law; by giving them up, we act under our own view of what the law should be, and have brought England over to adopting our view.”Hon. Asahel Huntington, the veteran lawyer, wrote from Salem:—“I am always greatly obliged by your speeches, which you have had the kindness to send me from time to time. They are all gems of the first water, but the ‘Trent’ is the greatest gem of all,—so calm, so full, so exhaustive, so statesmanlike, so Websterian in its statements, structure, and heavy logic, that, on first reading it, before receiving the pamphlet, I had it in my heart to write you at once and express my high admiration of that great passage in your public life. It was a great opportunity, and was met in the true spirit of a controversy between nations on questions of International Law. It was potential for good at home and abroad, and is worthy itself to be trusted as an authority from its own intrinsic weight.”Hon. George Morey, lawyer, and for a long time a political leader in Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:—“I congratulate you on your having delivered an excellent speech touching our foreign relations, and particularly the case of the Trent.“Your speech comes exceedingly apropos, following in the track of Mr. Seward’s despatch. As that despatch will be looked upon in England with some suspicion, as proceeding from an artful and wily statesman, and there may be a disposition to regard it as a cunningdodge, &c., it is very fortunate that your speech will follow in the wake of Mr. Seward’s letter. A very great number of distinguished men in England, statesmen, diplomatists, &c., will say, Mr. Sumner is honest, he speaks his real sentiments. Besides, it will be said that Mr. Sumner is a most decided Antislavery man, and he is heartily engaged in putting down this great Rebellion, not because he desires to fight forempire, as Earl Russell stated in a speech some time since our Government were, but because he is anxious to extinguish Slavery, and because he knows that Slavery is the origin of this war. I am satisfied your speech will have an excellent effect in England, and also in France, and all over the Continent. You have done a capital thing towards conciliating the favor and good-will of our State Street gentlemen. Mr. Cartwright, President of the Manufacturers’ Insurance Office, where I am a director, says you have done excellent service to the country and the good cause. He has a pretty large amount of war risks. Your short speech in answer to Mr. Hale was commended very highly everywhere.”Hon. Theophilus P. Chandler, lawyer, wrote from Boston:—“Your Trent speech is by far the best thing I have read on the subject. You lookdownupon the matter, while others lookatit.… The tables are completely turned upon England. If there is any shame in her, she will show it now.”Hon. E. F. Stone, lawyer, wrote from Newburyport:—“As one of your constituents, I write to thank you for your speech on the surrender of Mason and Slidell. I have read and re-read it with great satisfaction. It is just the thing to create a correct public opinion upon the subject in the country.”Hon. Alfred B. Ely, lawyer, and officer in the War of the Rebellion, wrote from Boston:—“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair with great pleasure. I deem it entirely unanswerable, and that it ought to conclude the whole subject. I desire, therefore, to congratulate you upon it.”William I. Bowditch, conveyancer and Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:—“I read your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter yesterday. It certainly is very admirable and conclusive. Still, I think it doubtful whether England will consider that she has really abandoned any of her previous pretensions by demanding and accepting the men.”Hon. Edward L. Pierce, lawyer, writer, and speaker, correct in opinion, and able, wrote from Boston:—“I read your speech. It is grand,—dealing just right with the British, and putting us on the highest grounds. It will help the country.”Rev. Baron Stow, the Baptist clergyman, wrote from Boston:—“My opinion of its merits may be of small importance to you, but I cannot forbear to assure you that it has the approbation and admiration of one of your constituents. I cannot be supposed to be much versed in International Law, but I understand your argument, and am sure that every one who reads must understand. I see not how you could have made it more clear or cogent. You condense the history of a vexed question into a crystalline lens, and every eye must see your point. I greatly mistake, if your views do not produce conviction both at home and abroad. You have performed a service to the true and the right which will surely be appreciated and acknowledged.”Rev. Caleb Stetson, the Liberal preacher, wrote from Lexington, Massachusetts:—“I must for a moment break in upon your vast public labors to thank you for your admirable speech on the affair of those two wretches, Mason and Slidell. You have said the best things that could be said, in the best manner. I greatly rejoice that the traitor villains are given up, for we cannot afford a war with England when we have this diabolical Rebellion. I am glad of your forbearance towards her, but I fear this generation will not forgive.”Rev. William H. Furness, the eloquent and Radical preacher, wrote from Philadelphia:—“Lend me your own gift, that I may tell you in fitting words how admirable your speech is. It is cheering to see how it has convinced people that all is right in regard to the Mason and Slidell affair. With all its shortcomings and shilly-shallying, what a glorious nation this North is!”James Russell Lowell, eminent in our literature, wrote from Cambridge:—“Let one of your constituents thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights. Excellent, as far as my judgment goes, in matter and manner.”Charles E. Norton, the accomplished author, and for a time editor of theNorth American Review, wrote from Cambridge:—“I read your speech last night with such great satisfaction, that I desire to express my thanks to you for it. The argument could not be more forcibly presented, or in a manner better fitted to enlighten and confirm the sense of national dignity here, and to give the right direction to public opinion abroad. You have done a work of the highest value.”Orestes A. Brownson, the able writer and reviewer, wrote from Elizabeth, New Jersey:—“I have been absent from home, and have read only the one on the Trent affair, which I think does you equal credit as a lawyer and a statesman. The view you take is the one which I myself took, when I first heard of the capture of Mason and Slidell, but I knew not that it could be backed by so many and such high authorities as you have cited.”Hon. Amasa Walker, Professor of Political Economy, and afterwards Representative in Congress, wrote from North Brookfield, Massachusetts:—“I am much obliged for your speech on Maritime Rights. It is your grandest effort. A noble theme, and treated in an able and most statesmanlike manner. You have never made a speech that did your country more good or yourself more credit. I am particularly glad that it draws forth encomiums from presses in this State that have been very hostile to you. They seem compelled to admit their admiration of the speech, and that it is a great historical document.”Parke Godwin, the able writer, wrote from the office of theNew York Evening Post:—“Let me add my congratulations to the thousands you must have already received for the noble speech in defence of our time-honored championship of the seas. It is thorough, searching, manly, and unanswerable.”Charles L. Brace, the enlightened Reformer and author, wrote from New York:—“Will you allow me, as one of your great ‘Constituency,’ to express my admiration of your speech on the Trent affair, as reported by telegraph to-day? Its enlightened views, broad treatment, sound policy, and thorough historical soundness make it, to my mind, the first of your many public efforts in oratory.”Professor Henry W. Torrey, of Harvard University, wrote:—“I hope that you will allow an old Whig, who has often differed from you in political opinion, though never seduced into supporting Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Bell, to congratulate you on the position you have taken and so ably maintained on Neutral Rights. From the first moment I trembled for the consequences of the seizure of the insurgents. Captain Wilkes’s act appeared to be a portentous blunder, matched only by the truculent indorsements that followed it. It consoles me, however, that this deed has become the occasion for teaching our people their own antecedents, and proving to the world their ability to mortify their pride in the presence of higher claims.… You have nobly substituted theargumentum ab humanitatefor theargumentum ad hominem, which you so justly condemn.”Rev. Convers Francis, the learned Professor, wrote from Cambridge:—“Most heartily do I thank you for yourgreatspeech on Maritime Rights, which adds another to your many claims on the nation’s gratitude. It is a thorough, exhaustive, and most able piece of argument,—by far the most so which that question called forth,—and extorts praise even from enemies.”John Penington, the bookseller, wrote from Philadelphia:—“I have delayed reading the ‘Maritime Rights’ speech till I could enjoy it in the pamphlet form, corrected. It is an admirable compend, a perfectmultum in parvo. It is a verification of the adage, that ‘Doctors don’t like to take their own physic,’—our friend Bull being no exception to the rule. I feel much obliged to you for the treat you have afforded me.”Alfred Pell, an intelligent Free-Trader, intimate with England, and manager of an important insurance office, wrote from New York:—“I have a long letter from [Admiral] Dupont. He wrote when his last advices from the North were of the 22d December, so that he could not have known what action the Government had determined upon; yet he says, ‘Few persons in the fleet approved of the action of Commodore Wilkes, and some of the most intelligent condemned itin toto, yet all allowed that it showed high moral courage on the part of Wilkes.’ … You show we do not stoop to conquer, and I am sure that our friends on the other side will feel like the lady’s maid spoken of by Swift, who said ‘that nothing annoyed her so much as being caught in a lie.’”John E. Lodge, merchant and personal friend, wrote from Boston:—“Your speech is more complete even than Mr. Seward’s note; it is considered here as your very happiest and ablest effort. The English will open their eyes at some parts of it.”Willard P. Phillips, merchant, wrote from Salem:—“The truth is, that at last you have satisfied even the commercial community, and they acknowledge that you have more than ‘one idea.’ They express surprise to find that you have attended to anything but Slavery, which they supposed had occupied all your thoughts and all your time. I am sure that your speech has made many who have heretofore opposed you feel much more kindly towards you; and I congratulate you, both upon this change of feeling towards you, and also upon the delivery of your speech, which, so able and clear, has satisfied even the doubtful ones that the surrender of the ‘two old men’ was right.”Stephen Higginson, merchant, wrote from Boston:—“I have read to-day with infinite satisfaction your speech of the 9th on the Trent affair, and you must allow me to tell you how much I admire it. Crammed with unimpeachable authorities, the argument terse, vigorous, and eloquent, this speech sheds a flood ofAmericanlight upon the subject, which has been wanting to all other essays upon it which have come under my notice.”George Livermore, merchant and student, wrote from Boston:—“I read your speech on the Trent affair with unqualified admiration, as it was printed in theJournal, and I hope a large edition will be published in pamphlet form for preservation. I had supposed Mr. Seward had exhausted all that could be said on ‘our side,’ but you have given new interest by your wonderful illustrations. The whole tone of the speech is admirable.”Waldo Higginson, an educated man of business, wrote from Boston:—“Having just completed reading your great speech on the Trent Question, I am impelled to write you, to do my humble part towards thanking you for such a triumphant effort. I think it is exhaustive, abstinent of all not strictly germane to the weighty matter in hand, puts the country in a far more dignified position than it was left by Mr. Seward’s late letter to Lord Lyons, eminently courteous towardspresentEngland, and determines as far as possible that country’s position.”Carlos Pierce, merchant, afterwards agriculturist, wrote enthusiastically from Boston:—“I am especially grateful for a copy of your most remarkable and wonderful speech, delivered in the Senate January 9, on Maritime Rights. It came at an opportune moment, when the whole populace were terribly excited, ready to plan any kind of an expedition to sink the vessel that should be sent to convey the Rebels from Fort Warren. It is hardly possible for you to conceive of the change it wrought in public sentiment in twenty-four hours. It was as oil poured upon the troubled waters to their wounded pride. But it equally astonished and delighted your best friends and worst enemies, and won for you a host of new admirers. It was the most masterly and powerfully convincing argument I have ever read of yours on any subject. The people, the press, the nation, the world, will ever delight to honor the man that displayed the genius equal to such a rare opportunity, and was ready to strike so powerful a blow against a terrible wrong long endured, and in favor of our nation’s honor, humanity, and civilization.”Robert K. Darrah, appraiser at the Custom-House, wrote:—“I am constrained to congratulate you upon making the Thursday speech on the Trent affair. It has fallen on the community with the most happy effect. It was most timely and salutary, and most certainly the great speech of the session in a higher than a rhetorical sense. It will have a most wide and extended influence: first, to pacificate the public sentiment in this country,and also in England; and then to conciliate European powers, by acceding to the policy and principles they urge upon us; and, finally, by clinching England to the construction of International Law for which we have always contended, and thus driving her from her offensive pretensions pertinaciously adhered to for a century. The speech is applauded on all sides, even by those who do not love our party or you any too well.… The peroration is particularly splendid, argumentative, eloquent, and wise. I repeat, that all sorts of people applaud it, and it is believed that you have done more to put down our Rebellion by your action in the Senate on Thursday than all the major-generals have done in the last six months.”Joseph Lyman, an early friend and college classmate, wrote from Jamaica Plain, near Boston:—“You cannot think how much I was delighted with your Trent speech. I say nothing of it critically, but that the statements were truly admirable; and you know very well, that, when a case is well stated, it is more than argued, it is adjudged. But this is not why I was so much pleased with it. It was because it was so thoroughly in your best line and manner. It showed you to the public as I want to show you,—as a trulypractical man. I know as well as you the absurdity of those who call Antislavery a party of one idea, of abstraction and transcendentalism, &c.,—as if the one idea of Humanity did not absorb all others of practical legislation.”Rev. Samuel M. Emery, of the Episcopal Church, and a college classmate, wrote from Portland, Connecticut:—“It is rather late in the day to congratulate you upon the lofty position you have reached on the round of fame and usefulness, but not too late to thank you for your exhaustive speech on the Trent affair. I, as well as thousands of Union-loving people, thank you for that speech.”William G. Snethen, Abolitionist and lawyer, wrote from Baltimore:—“God bless Mr. Sumner! Who shall say that God has not spared him from the bludgeon of the murderer, not only to defend the poor negro in his God-given rights, but to vindicate our country from the insolence of England, and pronounce judgment against her past wrongs, while according forgiveness to the tardy penitent?“You said that the correspondence closed with Governor Seward’s letter to Lord Lyons. True; but his annotator is not less illustrious.Par nobile fratrum!I am curious to see how your speech will be received in England.”John T. Morrison wrote from Washington:—“I have been so much pleased with your clear, concise, authoritative, and conclusive vindication of the action of the Government in the case, and, withal, with the sublime eloquence with which you proclaim the triumph of American diplomacy over the long, sullen, and obstinate perverseness of English rule, that I feel it my duty to ask a few copies of your speech for distribution among special friends in Indiana.”George Ely, of Chicago, wrote from Washington, where he was a visitor:—“I had the pleasure of listening to your great speech, delivered in the Senate of the United States yesterday, on Maritime Rights. Permit so humble an individual as myself, and a stranger to you, to congratulate you upon the unequalled ability of your speech, and the triumphant vindication you have given to the American doctrine upon that question. The country will feel proud, in these times of trouble and doubt, of such an advocate.”Ellis Yarnall, an excellent citizen, much connected with England, wrote from Philadelphia:—“And now that we have had that speech, everything else that has been said on the subject seems of little worth. Everywhere I hear the same judgment; so that your friends may well congratulate you on what is doubtless one of the most brilliant successes of your life. It seems to me of the greatest importance that the speech should have large circulation in England. TheTimes, I fear, will hardly publish what, from its very moderation and its statesmanlike dignity, will tell so much for the Americans. Yet the leading men of all parties will read it, and I am sure it will greatly help our cause. Your rebuke of England’s warlike preparations is most timely, and I am confident good men in England will feel nothing but shame at the remembrance of the menacing action into which they were betrayed, in December, 1861, in a controversy on what you call a question of law.”These unsought and voluntary expressions of opinion show that on this occasion, as when demanding Emancipation, Mr. Sumner was not alone. Weight and numbers were with him. Nobody better than these volunteers represented the intelligence and conscience of the country.

The scene at the delivery was described by the leading journals.

The correspondent of theNew York Tribunetelegraphed briefly, but emphatically.

“Senator Sumner’s speech was felt to be exhaustive of the Law of Nations which governed the case of the Trent, and is already ranked in Washington as a state paper upon the question of seizure and search worthy to be placed side by side with the despatches of Madison and Jefferson. It was delivered to a thronged and charmed Senate.”

The correspondent of theNew York Heraldtelegraphed more at length.

“The speech was impressively delivered. The galleries of the Senate were densely crowded. Notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, the ladies’ gallery was filled to overflowing. Mrs. Vice-President Hamlin and a party of her friends occupied seats in the diplomatic gallery, which was also filled. Secretaries Chase and Cameron occupied seats on the floor of the Chamber, where were also the French, Russian, Austrian, Prussian, Danish, and Swedish ministers. Lord Lyons was not present, as etiquette required that he should not be there on such an occasion. The speech was listened to with fixed attention by Senators Bright and Powell and ex-Senator Green. M. Mercier, the French minister, occupied a seat next to Mr. Bright, and exchanged salutations with Mr. Sumner at the conclusion of the speech, as did also most of the other foreign dignitaries.“Mr. Sumner’s speech has created a marked impression on the public in regard to himself. It has removed much prejudice that existed againsthim, and added greatly to his reputation as a profound statesman. The impression prevailed, that, with all his learning, his extraordinary acquirements, and splendid talents, he could not avoid the introduction of his peculiar views in reference to Slavery; and on account of the strong Antislavery proclivities of England hitherto, and the sympathy heretofore from this cause existing between leading English politicians and our own Antislavery men of Mr. Sumner’s class, it was apprehended by many that he would be inclined to lean towards Great Britain in this controversy. His course to-day was, therefore, an agreeable surprise. The absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question demonstrated his ability and willingness to rise superior to the one idea attributed to him, and the scathing exposition of British inconsistency in regard to the right of search, and the dignified rebuke he administered to England, exhibited his capacity to regard public affairs with the eye of a genuine statesman.“The applause accorded to this really great production is universal and unqualified.”

“Mr. Sumner’s speech has created a marked impression on the public in regard to himself. It has removed much prejudice that existed againsthim, and added greatly to his reputation as a profound statesman. The impression prevailed, that, with all his learning, his extraordinary acquirements, and splendid talents, he could not avoid the introduction of his peculiar views in reference to Slavery; and on account of the strong Antislavery proclivities of England hitherto, and the sympathy heretofore from this cause existing between leading English politicians and our own Antislavery men of Mr. Sumner’s class, it was apprehended by many that he would be inclined to lean towards Great Britain in this controversy. His course to-day was, therefore, an agreeable surprise. The absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question demonstrated his ability and willingness to rise superior to the one idea attributed to him, and the scathing exposition of British inconsistency in regard to the right of search, and the dignified rebuke he administered to England, exhibited his capacity to regard public affairs with the eye of a genuine statesman.

“The applause accorded to this really great production is universal and unqualified.”

The correspondent of theNew York Evening Postgives the following sketch of the scene in a letter.

“In spite of the fog, rain, and mud of this morning, the galleries of the Senate Chamber began to fill at an early hour. In addition to the lounginghabituésof the daily sessions, came a crowd which left them no room to lounge. You have only to advertise a speech, and how the life-tide sets towards the Capitol! Mr. Sumner’s splendid oratory always attracts immense audiences, even when his speeches bear upon the unpopular subject of Slavery.“Most people seemed to think that he was the slave of this one idea, and could only be great when mounted on his hobby. But in his master speech on the Trent affair and its relation to Maritime and International Law he has proved himself to be something more than the accomplished scholar, the eloquent speech-maker, forcing the recognition of his statesmanship from the very mouths of his enemies. This exposition of the triumph of American principles, necessarily less ornate than his more literary productions, is marked by all his usual fastidious strength of style. Vibrating through his voice, every word seemed a live nerve quivering with electric meaning.“A speech so kind and calm in rebuke, so elaborate in research, so bountiful in proof, so conclusive in argument, coming from the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and an acknowledged favorite of England, will appeal with strong conviction to her people. Here in Washington its praise is on every tongue. In the dense crowd of the gallery General Fremont was conspicuous, and among the Abolitionists of the audience were the Rev. John Pierpont and Rev. Dr. Channing of the new Antislavery church. The French, Danish, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, and Spanish ministers, with Secretaries Chase and Cameron, sat in groups in the Senate Chamber, amid the eagerly listening Senators. The last is a special item; for I observe, as an every-day habit, that these distinguished gentlemen do not pay very marked attention to each other’s speeches. In the crimson diplomatic gallery sat the daughter and wife of Vice-President Hamlin.”

“Most people seemed to think that he was the slave of this one idea, and could only be great when mounted on his hobby. But in his master speech on the Trent affair and its relation to Maritime and International Law he has proved himself to be something more than the accomplished scholar, the eloquent speech-maker, forcing the recognition of his statesmanship from the very mouths of his enemies. This exposition of the triumph of American principles, necessarily less ornate than his more literary productions, is marked by all his usual fastidious strength of style. Vibrating through his voice, every word seemed a live nerve quivering with electric meaning.

“A speech so kind and calm in rebuke, so elaborate in research, so bountiful in proof, so conclusive in argument, coming from the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and an acknowledged favorite of England, will appeal with strong conviction to her people. Here in Washington its praise is on every tongue. In the dense crowd of the gallery General Fremont was conspicuous, and among the Abolitionists of the audience were the Rev. John Pierpont and Rev. Dr. Channing of the new Antislavery church. The French, Danish, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, and Spanish ministers, with Secretaries Chase and Cameron, sat in groups in the Senate Chamber, amid the eagerly listening Senators. The last is a special item; for I observe, as an every-day habit, that these distinguished gentlemen do not pay very marked attention to each other’s speeches. In the crimson diplomatic gallery sat the daughter and wife of Vice-President Hamlin.”

The editorial judgments were in harmony with the reports of correspondents.

TheNational Intelligencer, at Washington, which had not inclined to Mr. Sumner on Slavery, said:—

“We give to-day, in consideration of the current interest attaching to its subject, and, we may add, because of its great ability, the speech delivered yesterday by Mr. Sumner in the Senate of the United States on the question of International Law raised by the arrest of Messrs. Mason and Slidell.“Singularly qualified for this discussion by his erudition as a jurist and as a student of history, besides being called by his position as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate to give to the subject that mature consideration it deserves, Mr. Sumner has brought to its treatment an affluence of illustration and authority, derived from the most cherished traditions of American diplomacy, for the purpose of showing that the decision to which our Government has come in the premises may be rested on a broader foundation than that which was sufficient to cover the ground of the British reclamation against the act of Captain Wilkes.”

“Singularly qualified for this discussion by his erudition as a jurist and as a student of history, besides being called by his position as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate to give to the subject that mature consideration it deserves, Mr. Sumner has brought to its treatment an affluence of illustration and authority, derived from the most cherished traditions of American diplomacy, for the purpose of showing that the decision to which our Government has come in the premises may be rested on a broader foundation than that which was sufficient to cover the ground of the British reclamation against the act of Captain Wilkes.”

L’Eco d’Italia, an Italian paper in New York, took this occasion to pay a warm tribute to Mr. Sumner, and his moderation of conduct.

“Nobody had better right to speak with knowledge and authority than the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, and as a man rather extreme in his ideas of personal independence.”

Then complimenting him on his knowledge of French and Italian, his admiration of Italian literature, and his ardent love of Italy, this journal says:—

“Sumner, from the beginning of his political career, showed himself the decided enemy of Slavery, and was marked by the opposite party as an Abolitionist, which was equivalent to subverter of public order, robber, and worse. In the midst of the greatest difficulties he kept himself constant always.… Now that the movement has commenced, Sumner, instead of throwing wood on the fire, which already burns too much, shows all the prudence and sagacity of a true statesman.”

TheWorld, in New York, said:—

“The carefully prepared speech which Mr. Sumner delivered in the Senate yesterday is an important contribution to the stock of current information on an important question of public law. The arrest of Mason and Slidell has not before been discussed with so much breadth of research. Mr. Sumner’s luminous speech is a remarkable example of the advantage ofhistorical knowledge in the discussion of public questions.…“It is creditable to Mr. Sumner that he has been able to present so conclusive an historical argument in opposition to the view of this subject taken by legists and publicists so able and erudite as Mr. Everett, Mr. Cushing, Professor Parsons, and Chief-Justice Bigelow, of his own State, and most of the public journals in all parts of the country. The error of these writers has consisted in an undue deference to the British admiralty decisions,—decisions against whose validity on the points involved in this controversy our Government has always protested.“Mr. Sumner’s argument plainly sustains Mr. Seward in his surrender of the Rebel commissioners, but not in his delaying to do so till they were demanded by the English Government. The thanks of the country are due to Mr. Sumner for his convincing argument that the national honor has suffered no detriment by their surrender.”

“It is creditable to Mr. Sumner that he has been able to present so conclusive an historical argument in opposition to the view of this subject taken by legists and publicists so able and erudite as Mr. Everett, Mr. Cushing, Professor Parsons, and Chief-Justice Bigelow, of his own State, and most of the public journals in all parts of the country. The error of these writers has consisted in an undue deference to the British admiralty decisions,—decisions against whose validity on the points involved in this controversy our Government has always protested.

“Mr. Sumner’s argument plainly sustains Mr. Seward in his surrender of the Rebel commissioners, but not in his delaying to do so till they were demanded by the English Government. The thanks of the country are due to Mr. Sumner for his convincing argument that the national honor has suffered no detriment by their surrender.”

TheNew York Commercial Advertisersaid:—

“Mr. Sumner gives, within limits as brief as the nature of the case would permit, the arguments which influenced the Committee after a laborious investigation of the point in dispute. He performs this duty in a temperate, lucid, and convincing manner, rising above all asperity or excitement, and viewing the question as it affects the best interests of the human race. At the same time he has steered almost entirely clear of the track marked out by Secretary Seward, the great body of his argument being drawn from events and precedents in the history of our own country.… We take the greater pleasure in referring to the elaborate arguments brought forward by Senator Sumner, inasmuch as certain parties seem to think that Secretary Seward’s able reply to Lord Lyons on this subject was nothing but a graceful backing down before superior force,—that he strove to hunt up precedents on behalf of a position which was in fact defensible only because our Government could not accept the gauntlet thrown down by that of Great Britain. No unprejudiced person, we think, can peruse Mr. Sumner’s speech without arriving at a different conclusion. It should rather be an occasion for national congratulation than humiliation, that Great Britain has,de facto, abandoned her old ground, and planted herself on doctrines and practice strictly, and for a time almost exclusively, American.”

TheBurlington Daily Times, of Vermont, said:—

“We have not room to print the elaborate and convincing argument of Senator Sumner on the seizure of the Rebel emissaries, Mason and Slidell. Notwithstanding all that has been said, it is fresh and original, and is a complete vindication of the course of the Administration in promptly restoring the seized persons to the British Government. It cannot remove the animosities which the course of England has kindled among Americans; but it cannot fail to heal the galled sense of wounded national honor, because it is shown by the argument that it has not been wounded at all,—that the feeling of shame and dishonor which has been experienced has been resting on imaginary and false grounds.”

TheBoston Transcriptsaid:—

“Fortunately for Mr. Sumner, events have arisen which have enabled him to demonstrate that he is not ridden by one idea. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the most important post that a Senator of the United States can hold in the present emergency of the nation, he has shown talents and acquirements which every fair mind cannot but appreciate. The ‘inevitable negro’ is banished from this arena, and the country has been astonished by the solidity of Mr. Sumner’s learning, the amplitude of his understanding, and the sagacity of his judgment on all the vital questions which have arisen in his special department. His speech on the affair of the Trent is a masterpiece. He goes beyond all the precedents of the conservative lawyers of New England, and all the arguments of the Secretary of State, to the essential principles of International Law, as recognized by the great thinkers and statesmen of the Continent of Europe, and as contended for by our own Government. He, the man who has most cause to hate Slidell and Mason, and who, from his Abolitionist proclivities, would be most opposed to delivering them up, is found to exceed even Mr. Seward in his desire to establish the rights of neutrals and ignore the passions of the hour.”

TheNorfolk County Journalsaid:—

“It is a work of supererogation to say one word in its praise. Public opinion has already stamped it as one of the great speeches of the present generation of American statesmen. In the acquaintance which it displays with International Law, the impregnability of its argument, the classic finish of its diction, and the statesmanlike temper which it brings to the discussion, it has gained for its author new honors, and done much to counteract a prejudice against our Senator which too many had mistakenly allowed to possess their minds.”

TheHaverhill Publishersaid:—

“The late speech of the Senator on the Trent affair is one of the ablest state papers that have appeared in this country for years, and will have a powerful influence upon the English mind in settling the present disturbed state of feeling, and also in securing the practical acknowledgment of a great principle in International Law. Those who have found the most fault of late with Mr. Sumner for his efforts to keep fresh before the country the cause of our present disaster, as an important thing to be considered, while struggling for relief, are now among the first to do him honor for his unanswerable argument upon the Trent Question, and the principle involved. In the end, the country and the world will as fully agree with him, practically, upon the question of Slavery. No man can more truly be said to be the man for the hour than can Senator Sumner.”

TheSalem Gazettesaid:—

“It is a pleasure to accord to Senator Sumner the approval of his most judicious course on the same subject. We take the more pleasure in this approval, because it has often been our fortune to differ with Mr. Sumner in regard to the treatment of some of the most important questions before the country. But in regard to our foreign relations, holding as he does the responsible position of Chairman of the Senate Committee on that subject, we confide in him as a safe, wise, and thoroughly well-informed guide.”

These are illustrations of the American press. Very different was that of London, so far as it spoke. One of our countrymen, then abroad, and closely observing the manifestations of opinion, remarked that the speech was attacked, but not reprinted.

“The excellence of any such effort is to be measured now in this country only by the amount of attack it calls out, and I was therefore much pleased to see that theTimeslost its temper in criticizing you. It is a significant fact, that neither it nor any of its allies have ventured to reprint the speech. They confine themselves to a style of criticism that I should call blackguard, against you, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Everett.”

In contrast with the prevailing tone was the London Peace Society, which, in its Annual Report, spoke of the speech.

“They felt it right to reprint the very able speech delivered by Mr. Charles Sumner on the affair of the Trent, because, while explicitly surrendering every right on the part of the American Government, as respects that transaction, he does so on such broad principles as in the judgment of the Committee it would be greatly to the advantage of all civilized states to adopt and act upon in their relations with each other. Copies of this pamphlet were sent to all Members of Parliament, and to a large number of newspapers and periodicals throughout the kingdom.”[115]

The character of the attack by theTimeswill be seen by a few passages from a leader, January 25, 1862.

“The last mail has brought us another attempt, made in a speech five columns long by Mr. Charles Sumner in the American Senate. This gentleman is, perhaps, the one American who has been most petted and fêted over here. Mr. Charles Sumner was the greatest drawing-room lion of his day, and his mane was combed by a thousand delicate hands, often held up in admiration at his gentle roarings. In America he has arrived at the high distinction of Senator for Massachusetts and Chairman of the Committee for Foreign Affairs; but after the very general hilarity throughout Europe caused by Mr. Seward’s diplomaticfiasco, it seems to have been thought necessary to put some one forward to make ‘a scathing exposition of British inconsistency,’ and to show what a victory over the old country had been obtained. So Charles Sumner is the man.… Mr. Sumner has not done his work ill. But then he had peculiar facilities for it. ‘Who best hasknown them can abuse them best.’ Moreover, his audience at Washington was not difficult. Gentlemen who could congratulate themselves on Bull Run required no cogent reasons for seeing a glorious triumph, first in the seizure of the Trent, and then in the compulsory surrender of the prize.… No wonder, then, that Mr. Charles Sumner’s speech in the Senate has been a great success. We are told that all the foreign ambassadors—except only Lord Lyons, whom nothing but severe diplomatic etiquette kept away—came round him and congratulated him; and that after its delivery, ‘our respected mother, England,’ is ‘left out in the cold,’—whatever that may mean. The two points which seem especially to have been admired are, first, ‘the absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question,’—showing that he is by no means so obstinate upon that matter as had been feared,—and, second, ‘the signal rebuke he administered to England.’ We can go some way with Mr. Sumner’s encomiasts in this admiration. It at least shows a versatile and cosmopolitan mind. His ‘allusions to the Negro Question’ are evidently only absent from his Washington speeches because they are kept entirely for English use, and are not fitted for home consumption; whereas the ‘rebukes’ are manufactured expressly for the American market, and are never offered for acceptance on this side of the Atlantic.… It is of no great consequence to us what clouds of dust American statesmen may choose to raise in order to escape from their difficulty. Now that they have eaten the leek, they may declare, if they please, that it was exquisite in its flavor, and had been presented to them as a mark of honor.…“The case of the Trent has not made any new precedent whatever, nor can it clash with any precedent upon which in modern times we ever did or could have intended to rely. The forcible removal of those four men from under the British flag was a rude outrage, redeemed neither by precedent nor principle, and it has been resented and repaired. If all the Federal Senate make set speeches till doomsday, they can make no more of it.”

“The case of the Trent has not made any new precedent whatever, nor can it clash with any precedent upon which in modern times we ever did or could have intended to rely. The forcible removal of those four men from under the British flag was a rude outrage, redeemed neither by precedent nor principle, and it has been resented and repaired. If all the Federal Senate make set speeches till doomsday, they can make no more of it.”

In the course of its objurgations, theTimesseeks to repel the parallel between the taking by Captain Wilkes and the taking of American citizens by British cruisers, and here it asserts:—

“In the current number of theQuarterly Reviewit is conclusively shown that only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’ were taken by our cruisers out of American ships in the year preceding the war of 1812.”[116]

“Only two men ‘claiming to be Americans’”! Lord Castlereagh, in the House of Commons, immediately after the breaking out of the war, admitted that there were in the British fleet three thousand five hundred men “who claimed to be American subjects.”[117]TheTimesperhaps intended “only two men” really American. But here is strangeand total oblivion of the fact, that, in every case of taking, whether the victim was American or not, whether two or two hundred were seized, there was an exercise of the very prerogative it condemned in Captain Wilkes, although he had an excuse beyond that of any British cruiser.

This leader of theTimeswas followed by an article, dated at the Temple, January 28, from its famous correspondent “Historicus,” known to be Mr. Vernon Harcourt, a writer of admirable power on questions of International Law, and afterwards a distinguished member of Parliament. In this article the same spirit appeared, with the same personality, and the same hardihood of assertion. Beginning with elaborate flings at Mr. George Sumner, where the causticity is reinforced fromMartin Chuzzlewit, he comes to the Senator, and, in the tone already adopted by theTimes, refers to his reception in London: “It would be scarcely too much to say, that, for a single season, Mr. Charles Sumner enjoyed a social success almost equal to that of the ‘Black Sam’ himself. He was regarded as ‘a man and a brother,’ and he could not have been better treated, if he had had real black blood in his veins.” This is to prepare for what follows.

“It is impossible adequately to describe the ‘threat speech’ in the Senate, except by saying that Charles, if possible, out-Sumners George. The great object of this remarkable oration is to prove that the surrender of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a great triumph for the American Government. There is, proverbially, no accounting for taste; and if the American people are of Mr. Sumner’s opinion, I do not see why we should complain of their contentment. Some people, like Uriah Heep, are ‘very ’umble,’ and their meekness is an edifying spectacle. We demanded the restoration of the prisoners, not in order to mortify the American people, but for the purpose of vindicating the honor of our flag and asserting the established principles of Maritime Law.”

In exposing Mr. Sumner’s misfeasance, the writer proceeds:—

“As if to make the absurdity of his position more conspicuous, Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch. He has even the incredible audacity (if it be not, indeed, an ignorance hardly less credible) to pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the pretension to treat Messrs. Slidell and Mason as ‘contraband of war.’”

This is followed by an extract from M. Hautefeuille, declaring that a neutral ship, destined for a neutral port, is not subject to seizure.

This passage shows that the writer had in mind something very different from the speech he criticized. Mr. Sumner nowhere alludes to Mr. Seward’s despatch, much less does he invoke the sympathies of Continental Europe for its doctrines. Nor does he pledge the authorityof M. Hautefeuille in support of the pretension to treat the Rebel agents as contraband of war; on the contrary, he mentioned M. Hautefeuille as having “entered into this debate with a direct proposition for the release of the emissaries as a testimony to the true interpretation of International Law,”[118]and himself insists upon the very doctrine of the French publicist. Plainly, therefore, the writer dealt hard words at Mr. Sumner, mistaking him for somebody else.

Then comes another misapprehension.

“I know not whether, in the hazy muddle of a confused intelligence, Mr. Sumner has figured to himself that the seizure of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a parallel case to the instances of impressment of seamen out of which grew the war of 1812. Yet men of less pretensions than the ‘Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations’ ought to be aware that the cases are not only not the same, but not even similar. Their resemblance, at most, extends to the proverbial identity of chalk and cheese.”

Evidently the writer had not read the opinion of the law officers, individualizing the point, that “from on board a merchant ship of a neutral power, pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage, certain individuals have been taken by force,”[119]which was the precise point so often urged by the United States against impressment.

Then follow the general condemnation and counterblast.

“It is impossible to read such performances as the ‘Great Speech of the Hon. C. Sumner’ without drawing a gloomy augury for the future of a nation among whom such a man can occupy a chief place. In all the symptoms of decadence which the recent history of the American Republic exhibits, there is none more conspicuous and apparently more irreparable than the decline in capacity and character of her public men. The men bred under the shadow of the English colonial system were of a very different stamp from the race which progressive Democracy has spawned for itself.…“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of impotent violence and furious incapacity.”

“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of impotent violence and furious incapacity.”

In the volume of Historicus,[120]much of which constitutes a valuable contribution to International Law, this effusion is abridged and modified. Some things are left out, and others are changed. Generally the personalitiesare mitigated. Thus, the original caption, “The Brothers Sumner on International Law,” is turned into “Letter on Mr. Sumner’s Speech,” and “the hazy muddle of a confused intelligence” is softened into “a confusion of mind” attributed to Mr. Sumner; but the article is introduced by words describing the speech as “professingto expound and to maintain the doctrines of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” and it repeats the allegation that “Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” whereas, in fact, he never professed or did any such thing. It would be pleasant to forget that an article of such a character was ever written; nor would it be mentioned here, if it did not throw important light—and not to be neglected—on the general tone of the British press and its unfounded conduct towards our Republic at a critical moment.

Contemporary letters from countrymen abroad tell how they were impressed.

At home, persons in all conditions—statesmen, judges, lawyers, clergymen, authors, citizens—made haste to express gratification and sympathy. This copious correspondence evinces the intensity and extent of the prevailing sentiment, which can be learned in no other way. Thus it illustrates an important chapter of history.

A letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., District Attorney of the United States at Boston, and afterwards the annotator of Wheaton’s “Elements of International Law,” an able publicist, full of good feeling for England, though written at Boston, may be introduced here, as it bears especially upon the conduct of England and the English press.

“Permit me to say that I am glad to see the LondonTimes’attack on you and your Trent speech. It will make you feel to the quick—what you did not seem to feel, or refused to admit—theinsolenttone of the British press and public men towards us in our struggle for life, and the false manner in which they have tried to turn this case to our national ruin. Those few semi-republican, semi-abolition, liberally inclined men in England, whom you respect, and who command, perhaps, one paper and one monthly, are a drop in the bucket. The ruling class in England is determined to sever this Republic, and all its pent-up jealousy, arrogance, and superciliousness are breaking out stronger and stronger.“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of this case, because they know, that, properly understood, they would not support the hostile feeling against this country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced to know that you feel this.“I have had a letter from England, from a high source, which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc., but says, “No paper has dared to publishit,” and speaks of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it apparent that it is read.“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it has cost him his favor in England.’“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in them. They arethe best omen for youthat I have seen.”

“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of this case, because they know, that, properly understood, they would not support the hostile feeling against this country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced to know that you feel this.

“I have had a letter from England, from a high source, which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc., but says, “No paper has dared to publishit,” and speaks of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it apparent that it is read.

“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it has cost him his favor in England.’

“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in them. They arethe best omen for youthat I have seen.”

Hon. George R. Russell, an excellent citizen of Boston, travelling in Europe, wrote from Florence:—

“TheTimeshas come down on you, and has failed. It has the usual bitterness, but the power is wanting.”

Hon. James E. Harvey, Minister Resident at Lisbon, wrote:—

“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair, and cannot refrain from expressing my thanks for its able and conclusive vindication of the position of our Government on that subject. If any reasoning can reconcile the American mind to the restitution of the two emissaries to British protection, your arguments and the calm and convincing presentation of facts must do it. What you have said of Hautefeuille might be justly applied to this statesmanlike production, which, in comprehension and in logical connection, is a state paper.”

Hon. Bradford R. Wood, Minister Resident at Copenhagen, wrote:—

“I thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights, just received, and which I have carefully read. All my assertions that the Trent affair would not lead to war were received here with incredulity, by the Government, by my colleagues, by all parties. It was a bitter disappointment to some of the English here, and I doubt not in England, that this matter has been settled without war. The LondonTimes, while criticizing your speech and denying its conclusions, writhes under it, and its arguments are a severer rebuke to England than any philippics or denunciations could be.”

William S. Thayer, Consul-General at Alexandria, wrote from his post:—

“I lent Mr. Buckle[121]theIntelligencerwith your speech on the Trent affair, some points of which received his emphatic indorsement.”

Hon. John Bigelow, Consul at Paris, and afterwards Minister there, wrote from Paris:—

“It produced an excellent effect here, and still better in England, if one may judge by the ill-humor in which it put theTimes. The impotent venom of that journal, under the circumstances, was more complimentary than its praise could have been.”

Henry Woods, the Parisian member of the American importing house of Messrs. C. F. Hovey & Co., wrote from Paris:—

“I have to thank you for a copy of your very able speech on the Trent affair, which has been very much read, and in all quarters I hear it spoken of with admiration. It is considered your greatest effort, and worthy of a great occasion.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, author and Abolitionist, Consul at Cardiff, Wales, wrote:—

“How my heart rejoices that the affair of the Trent is thus amicably settled! but—and Imustsay so—I have little faith in the good feeling of the Government of England, and the leading influences here, towards our country. How indignant have I felt the last six weeks at the tone of the leading papers towards our country! Nothing, hardly, could exceed the bitterness of theTimes, thePost, theTelegraph, theSaturday Review, &c., &c. EvenPunchlent all his influence to the Rebels, and against us. The very first number after the news of the Trent affair was received had a full-length figure of Britannia standing beside a cannon, with a match in her hand, looking across the water, and underneath was written, ‘Waiting for an Answer.’“True, the religious public, or rather the Dissenters, have shown right feelings; and I wrote letters of thanks to Dr. Newman Hall and to Mr. Spurgeon for what they had done, and received very kind answers; but very few of the Church Establishment have shown right feelings.“I was always the friend of England, and few have written or spoken more in commendation of her; but I must in truth say that my feelings have changed since I have been here. England would rejoice to-day to see our country divided. She sees our growing greatness, and envies and fears it.”

“True, the religious public, or rather the Dissenters, have shown right feelings; and I wrote letters of thanks to Dr. Newman Hall and to Mr. Spurgeon for what they had done, and received very kind answers; but very few of the Church Establishment have shown right feelings.

“I was always the friend of England, and few have written or spoken more in commendation of her; but I must in truth say that my feelings have changed since I have been here. England would rejoice to-day to see our country divided. She sees our growing greatness, and envies and fears it.”

In close connection with letters from abroad is that of E. Littell, founder and editor of theLiving Age, close student of the English press, and warmly attached to England, who wrote from Boston:—

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the speech on the Trent affair. ‘They of the contrary part,’ even, ‘cannot gainsay it.’“After feeling so deeply the almost unbroken attitude of the London press as to be forced to think and say that I must give up my love for England (which was a part of my inmost heart), I have reverted to her again, pleading that that press does not represent either her people or her Government.”

“Allow me to congratulate you upon the speech on the Trent affair. ‘They of the contrary part,’ even, ‘cannot gainsay it.’

“After feeling so deeply the almost unbroken attitude of the London press as to be forced to think and say that I must give up my love for England (which was a part of my inmost heart), I have reverted to her again, pleading that that press does not represent either her people or her Government.”

Hon. Henry L. Dawes, the eminent Representative in Congress, wrote:—

“I congratulate you on your great effort to-day. It was worthy of you. I regret I could not hear it all. But I shall have the greater pleasure in reading it.”

Hon. Hamilton Fish, afterwards Secretary of State, wrote from New York:—

“Exactlyright; you have done justice to the question, the country, its history, its policy, and its late action. On such ground as you have placed the subject we stand proudly before the world.…“It should be circulated largely in England, among the class who will read it. The British press will not publish it in full, unless you can bring, through some of your friends, an influence to bear. Cannot you do so?”

“Exactlyright; you have done justice to the question, the country, its history, its policy, and its late action. On such ground as you have placed the subject we stand proudly before the world.…

“It should be circulated largely in England, among the class who will read it. The British press will not publish it in full, unless you can bring, through some of your friends, an influence to bear. Cannot you do so?”

Hon. N. P. Talmadge, former Senator of the United States from New York, wrote from Georgetown, District of Columbia:—

“I have just read with great pleasure your very able speech in regard to Messrs. Mason and Slidell and the recent affair of the Trent. Coming in support of the lucid and able reply of Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons, it places the matter before the American people and all Europe in a light as clear as a sunbeam.“It seems to me that England, in the excitement of the moment, and with the sudden impulse of redressing a fancied wrong, has not foreseen the inevitable result to which her own action has brought her. She may attempt hereafter, as occasion may require, to evade the consequences by saying that the law officers of the crown decided that the wrong consisted in not taking the Trent into port for the adjudication of a Prize Court, and therefore that was the only point involved. She will find, however, that not only the United States, but France, and all Europe, will hold her to the consequences which you have so clearly demonstrated flow from her own action.“Mr. Seward’s reply to Lord Lyons, and your speech, will settle this whole question with the American people. If their judgments are satisfied, they cheerfully acquiesce, no matter how high their passions may have been wrought against these Rebels, nor how strong their desire to keep possession of them. I believe there is not a loyal press that has not acquiesced in the decision of the Administration. How proudly all this contrasts with the predictions of Dr. Russell, the correspondent of the LondonTimes, that, if these men were given up, the Government would be dissolved and destroyed by the mob! This will show England that a British ministry have much more to fear from her mobs than the Administration of this Government have to fear from our people.”

“It seems to me that England, in the excitement of the moment, and with the sudden impulse of redressing a fancied wrong, has not foreseen the inevitable result to which her own action has brought her. She may attempt hereafter, as occasion may require, to evade the consequences by saying that the law officers of the crown decided that the wrong consisted in not taking the Trent into port for the adjudication of a Prize Court, and therefore that was the only point involved. She will find, however, that not only the United States, but France, and all Europe, will hold her to the consequences which you have so clearly demonstrated flow from her own action.

“Mr. Seward’s reply to Lord Lyons, and your speech, will settle this whole question with the American people. If their judgments are satisfied, they cheerfully acquiesce, no matter how high their passions may have been wrought against these Rebels, nor how strong their desire to keep possession of them. I believe there is not a loyal press that has not acquiesced in the decision of the Administration. How proudly all this contrasts with the predictions of Dr. Russell, the correspondent of the LondonTimes, that, if these men were given up, the Government would be dissolved and destroyed by the mob! This will show England that a British ministry have much more to fear from her mobs than the Administration of this Government have to fear from our people.”

Hon. Julius Rockwell, the Judge, and former Senator of the United States, with lifelong experience, political and judicial, wrote from Pittsfield, Massachusetts:—

“The public opinion, as far as I know it here, is in accordance with the positions set forth in your speech, and your speech will tend to illustrate and render it more general. Still, some are unsatisfied, and there is a general, I may say, almost universal, accession of dissatisfaction with the conduct and character of England. This feeling just now pervades our people, crops out in all lectures, and in many sermons, and some prayers.”

Hon. Daniel Ullmann, prominent in the politics of New York, and a General in the war, wrote from his head-quarters:—

“You will greatly oblige me by sending to my address a pamphlet copy of your great speech on the ‘Trent affair.’ I desire it in that form for preservation.”

Hon. James Duane Doty, Governor of Utah, and former Representative in Congress, wrote from Salt Lake City:—

“Far, far from you, on the top of the Rocky Mountains, I have just held communion with you by a perusal of your able, eloquent, and conclusive speech on the Trent affair, as reported in theHeraldof the 10th January, which has just reached us. Surely no nation was ever put in a more absurd position than you have placed England, and if she is satisfied with the possession of the Rebels (whom, I am glad to notice, you have not named), we ought to be gratified; for it avoids a quarrel at an inconvenient time, and allays public feeling, which was becoming much excited. These two worthless Rebels could not have been put to a better use.”

Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, afterwards Minister at Constantinople, wrote from West Chester, Pennsylvania:—

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you the personal obligation I feel for your last great speech. Its wise candor and its steadfast adherence to the landmarks of maritime freedom cannot fail to make a profound impression upon the liberal minds of Europe; while disclaiming the thought of her dishonor, you have lifted the Republic to the heights of a beneficent victory.”

Hon. B. C. Clark, merchant, and Consul for Hayti, wrote from Boston:—

“Your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter has won, most justly, golden opinions from all sorts of people. The affair has been put to rest, but simply on legal grounds.… The Trent will tell more terribly upon England than the ghost of Cæsar upon Brutus at Philippi.”

Hon. George T. Bigelow, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:—

“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with very great pleasure. It is an admirable exposition of the doctrine which England has so long held on the subject of neutral rights; and while it demonstrates that the act of Captain Wilkes might have been justified on English practice and precedents, it places in the most clear light that it was inconsistent with the position which our Government has always occupied on the subject of search and seizure. The tone of the speech is so quiet and dignified, that it will have the effect, I think, of a severe rebuke on the hasty and unjustifiable conduct of the English Cabinet in demanding a reparation and a surrender of the captives with warlike menaces and preparations.“The prevailing sentiment here, especially among those who have not heretofore been inclined to speak your praise, is one of commendation of your speech. I am rejoiced that you have been able, while vindicating the course of the Administration in making the surrender of Mason and Slidell, to add so much to your reputation as a statesman.”

“The prevailing sentiment here, especially among those who have not heretofore been inclined to speak your praise, is one of commendation of your speech. I am rejoiced that you have been able, while vindicating the course of the Administration in making the surrender of Mason and Slidell, to add so much to your reputation as a statesman.”

Hon. Theophilus Parsons, the eminent law-writer and law-professor, wrote from Cambridge:—

“I have read and studied your speech, and am really unwilling to repeat to you what I have said in commendation of it to others.“This question may be considered after the fashion of a lawyer, or a politician, or a statesman.“You have viewed it as a statesman, and, in my understanding of the word, that includes the other two, and elevates them both.“The affair has given rise to no paper so entirely satisfactory to me, nor to one calculated, in my judgment, to be so truly and permanently useful.”

“I have read and studied your speech, and am really unwilling to repeat to you what I have said in commendation of it to others.

“This question may be considered after the fashion of a lawyer, or a politician, or a statesman.

“You have viewed it as a statesman, and, in my understanding of the word, that includes the other two, and elevates them both.

“The affair has given rise to no paper so entirely satisfactory to me, nor to one calculated, in my judgment, to be so truly and permanently useful.”

Hon. Emory Washburn, Professor at the Law School, and former Governor of Massachusetts, wrote:—

“I cannot forbear expressing my satisfaction in reading your speech in the Senate on the Trent affair. It seems to me to place the matter on the true ground; and if the English Government do not find, when they come to look coolly at the matter, that in taking Mason and Slidell they have caught two Tartars, I shall be greatly mistaken. I think, moreover, you have spoken the sober, sound thought of the country; and while they are indignant at the inconsistent annoyance of the ministry and the press of England, they feel that the course taken is not only the wise and expedient one, but, on the whole, the most consistent.”

Hon. John H. Clifford, former Attorney-General of Massachusetts, and Governor, wrote from Boston:—

“I have read with unqualified approval and satisfaction your admirable exposition of the interesting questions of public law in your recent speech, growing out of the arrest and rendition of the ‘two old men’ taken from the Trent. I trust its treatment of the doctrine of Maritime Rights will command on the other side of the water the respect to which it is so justly entitled, and of which its reception by the best minds at home gives a hopeful assurance.”

Hon. John C. Gray, a venerable and accomplished citizen, wrote from Boston:—

“I return you my acknowledgments for your speech on the Mason and Slidell affair. The more I have examined the law,—and I regret that I did not do it earlier,—the more I am satisfied that our civilians here were mistaken in their first impressions.”

Hon. George S. Hale, lawyer, wrote from Boston:—

“Permit me to congratulate you on your late speech in the Senate. I am not unfamiliar with your speeches, and feel great pleasure in saying thatnone has ever, in my opinion, so strengthened your position as a statesman; none has been more happy, more effective, or more generally satisfactory to your constituents.“Without calling up any of those questions upon which many of them have differed from you, you have done much to contribute to public peace, and aided well, under peculiarly difficult circumstances, in placing the country in an honorable position before the world.”

“Without calling up any of those questions upon which many of them have differed from you, you have done much to contribute to public peace, and aided well, under peculiarly difficult circumstances, in placing the country in an honorable position before the world.”

Hon. Charles P. Huntington, late Judge of the Superior Court for Suffolk County, wrote:—

“I have read your speech on the Trent affair with more satisfaction than anything that has yet been uttered on the subject, and as placing the merits of the question on the most satisfactory and statesmanlike ground.”

Rev. Theodore D. Woolsey, the excellent President of Yale College, and author of a work on International Law, wrote from New Haven:—

“Having just read with great pleasure your speech on the Trent case, as given in theTribuneof yesterday, I feel moved to express to you my satisfaction that you have given the affair such a shape, and have tacitly exposed some of Mr. Seward’s errors.”

Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New York:—

“Accept my congratulations on your very able speech on the Trent matter. It will rather surprise your friends in England.”

Hon. John M. Read, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, wrote from Philadelphia:—

“I was very much gratified in reading your very able, temperate, and forcible speech on the Trent affair.”

Then, in a second letter, the same judicial authority wrote:—

“It is the very best discussion of the whole subject that I have seen.”

Hon. Francis Brockholst Cutting, former Representative in Congress from New York, and a leader of the bar, wrote from New York:—

“Your speech on Maritime Rights has given me very great satisfaction. It was worthy of your reputation, and equal to the occasion. The argument was particularly gratifying to me, because, from the outset, I had looked at the case from the American point of view, and had expressed myself accordingly.”

Hon. R. J. Meigs, of Tennessee, for a long time eminent at the bar and in juridical study, wrote from New York:—

“One word more. I thank you for your speech upon the Trent affair. It vindicates the honor of our baited and abused country. It will be a well-remembered document in the diplomacy of the world, settling as it does forever the immunity of neutrals from the insulting pretension of the right to seize persons on their ships merely upon the ground that they owe allegiance to the belligerent. It effectually extracts that poisonous fang from the jaws of Leviathan.”

Hon. David Roberts, lawyer, and author of a “Treatise on Admiralty and Prize,” wrote from Salem:—

“I deem it your best effort, settling, what to me was from the firsttheembarrassing element in the Wilkes question,a true Americandefinition of ‘despatches.’“I therefore thank you for the speech sincerely; and though differingtoto cœlofrom you politically in other respects, I shall not withhold my commendation from your present effort, deeming it, as I do, the paramount duty of all to inculcate the lesson of loyalty everywhere, until this Government is vindicated, and the existing Rebellion suppressed.”

“I deem it your best effort, settling, what to me was from the firsttheembarrassing element in the Wilkes question,a true Americandefinition of ‘despatches.’

“I therefore thank you for the speech sincerely; and though differingtoto cœlofrom you politically in other respects, I shall not withhold my commendation from your present effort, deeming it, as I do, the paramount duty of all to inculcate the lesson of loyalty everywhere, until this Government is vindicated, and the existing Rebellion suppressed.”

Hon. George Wheatland, lawyer, wrote from Salem:—

“Allow me, for the first time of ever addressing you, to thank you for your masterly statement of the Trent matter, which I have just risen from reading in theBoston Journal.“You have put the matter in its true light.…“Your speech will shed light, and, in fact, illuminate the whole subject, and should be read by every one. By taking Mason & Co. we were acting on the English law; by giving them up, we act under our own view of what the law should be, and have brought England over to adopting our view.”

“Allow me, for the first time of ever addressing you, to thank you for your masterly statement of the Trent matter, which I have just risen from reading in theBoston Journal.

“You have put the matter in its true light.…

“Your speech will shed light, and, in fact, illuminate the whole subject, and should be read by every one. By taking Mason & Co. we were acting on the English law; by giving them up, we act under our own view of what the law should be, and have brought England over to adopting our view.”

Hon. Asahel Huntington, the veteran lawyer, wrote from Salem:—

“I am always greatly obliged by your speeches, which you have had the kindness to send me from time to time. They are all gems of the first water, but the ‘Trent’ is the greatest gem of all,—so calm, so full, so exhaustive, so statesmanlike, so Websterian in its statements, structure, and heavy logic, that, on first reading it, before receiving the pamphlet, I had it in my heart to write you at once and express my high admiration of that great passage in your public life. It was a great opportunity, and was met in the true spirit of a controversy between nations on questions of International Law. It was potential for good at home and abroad, and is worthy itself to be trusted as an authority from its own intrinsic weight.”

Hon. George Morey, lawyer, and for a long time a political leader in Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:—

“I congratulate you on your having delivered an excellent speech touching our foreign relations, and particularly the case of the Trent.“Your speech comes exceedingly apropos, following in the track of Mr. Seward’s despatch. As that despatch will be looked upon in England with some suspicion, as proceeding from an artful and wily statesman, and there may be a disposition to regard it as a cunningdodge, &c., it is very fortunate that your speech will follow in the wake of Mr. Seward’s letter. A very great number of distinguished men in England, statesmen, diplomatists, &c., will say, Mr. Sumner is honest, he speaks his real sentiments. Besides, it will be said that Mr. Sumner is a most decided Antislavery man, and he is heartily engaged in putting down this great Rebellion, not because he desires to fight forempire, as Earl Russell stated in a speech some time since our Government were, but because he is anxious to extinguish Slavery, and because he knows that Slavery is the origin of this war. I am satisfied your speech will have an excellent effect in England, and also in France, and all over the Continent. You have done a capital thing towards conciliating the favor and good-will of our State Street gentlemen. Mr. Cartwright, President of the Manufacturers’ Insurance Office, where I am a director, says you have done excellent service to the country and the good cause. He has a pretty large amount of war risks. Your short speech in answer to Mr. Hale was commended very highly everywhere.”

“I congratulate you on your having delivered an excellent speech touching our foreign relations, and particularly the case of the Trent.

“Your speech comes exceedingly apropos, following in the track of Mr. Seward’s despatch. As that despatch will be looked upon in England with some suspicion, as proceeding from an artful and wily statesman, and there may be a disposition to regard it as a cunningdodge, &c., it is very fortunate that your speech will follow in the wake of Mr. Seward’s letter. A very great number of distinguished men in England, statesmen, diplomatists, &c., will say, Mr. Sumner is honest, he speaks his real sentiments. Besides, it will be said that Mr. Sumner is a most decided Antislavery man, and he is heartily engaged in putting down this great Rebellion, not because he desires to fight forempire, as Earl Russell stated in a speech some time since our Government were, but because he is anxious to extinguish Slavery, and because he knows that Slavery is the origin of this war. I am satisfied your speech will have an excellent effect in England, and also in France, and all over the Continent. You have done a capital thing towards conciliating the favor and good-will of our State Street gentlemen. Mr. Cartwright, President of the Manufacturers’ Insurance Office, where I am a director, says you have done excellent service to the country and the good cause. He has a pretty large amount of war risks. Your short speech in answer to Mr. Hale was commended very highly everywhere.”

Hon. Theophilus P. Chandler, lawyer, wrote from Boston:—

“Your Trent speech is by far the best thing I have read on the subject. You lookdownupon the matter, while others lookatit.… The tables are completely turned upon England. If there is any shame in her, she will show it now.”

Hon. E. F. Stone, lawyer, wrote from Newburyport:—

“As one of your constituents, I write to thank you for your speech on the surrender of Mason and Slidell. I have read and re-read it with great satisfaction. It is just the thing to create a correct public opinion upon the subject in the country.”

Hon. Alfred B. Ely, lawyer, and officer in the War of the Rebellion, wrote from Boston:—

“I have just read your speech on the Trent affair with great pleasure. I deem it entirely unanswerable, and that it ought to conclude the whole subject. I desire, therefore, to congratulate you upon it.”

William I. Bowditch, conveyancer and Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:—

“I read your speech on the Mason and Slidell matter yesterday. It certainly is very admirable and conclusive. Still, I think it doubtful whether England will consider that she has really abandoned any of her previous pretensions by demanding and accepting the men.”

Hon. Edward L. Pierce, lawyer, writer, and speaker, correct in opinion, and able, wrote from Boston:—

“I read your speech. It is grand,—dealing just right with the British, and putting us on the highest grounds. It will help the country.”

Rev. Baron Stow, the Baptist clergyman, wrote from Boston:—

“My opinion of its merits may be of small importance to you, but I cannot forbear to assure you that it has the approbation and admiration of one of your constituents. I cannot be supposed to be much versed in International Law, but I understand your argument, and am sure that every one who reads must understand. I see not how you could have made it more clear or cogent. You condense the history of a vexed question into a crystalline lens, and every eye must see your point. I greatly mistake, if your views do not produce conviction both at home and abroad. You have performed a service to the true and the right which will surely be appreciated and acknowledged.”

Rev. Caleb Stetson, the Liberal preacher, wrote from Lexington, Massachusetts:—

“I must for a moment break in upon your vast public labors to thank you for your admirable speech on the affair of those two wretches, Mason and Slidell. You have said the best things that could be said, in the best manner. I greatly rejoice that the traitor villains are given up, for we cannot afford a war with England when we have this diabolical Rebellion. I am glad of your forbearance towards her, but I fear this generation will not forgive.”

Rev. William H. Furness, the eloquent and Radical preacher, wrote from Philadelphia:—

“Lend me your own gift, that I may tell you in fitting words how admirable your speech is. It is cheering to see how it has convinced people that all is right in regard to the Mason and Slidell affair. With all its shortcomings and shilly-shallying, what a glorious nation this North is!”

James Russell Lowell, eminent in our literature, wrote from Cambridge:—

“Let one of your constituents thank you for your speech on Maritime Rights. Excellent, as far as my judgment goes, in matter and manner.”

Charles E. Norton, the accomplished author, and for a time editor of theNorth American Review, wrote from Cambridge:—

“I read your speech last night with such great satisfaction, that I desire to express my thanks to you for it. The argument could not be more forcibly presented, or in a manner better fitted to enlighten and confirm the sense of national dignity here, and to give the right direction to public opinion abroad. You have done a work of the highest value.”

Orestes A. Brownson, the able writer and reviewer, wrote from Elizabeth, New Jersey:—

“I have been absent from home, and have read only the one on the Trent affair, which I think does you equal credit as a lawyer and a statesman. The view you take is the one which I myself took, when I first heard of the capture of Mason and Slidell, but I knew not that it could be backed by so many and such high authorities as you have cited.”

Hon. Amasa Walker, Professor of Political Economy, and afterwards Representative in Congress, wrote from North Brookfield, Massachusetts:—

“I am much obliged for your speech on Maritime Rights. It is your grandest effort. A noble theme, and treated in an able and most statesmanlike manner. You have never made a speech that did your country more good or yourself more credit. I am particularly glad that it draws forth encomiums from presses in this State that have been very hostile to you. They seem compelled to admit their admiration of the speech, and that it is a great historical document.”

Parke Godwin, the able writer, wrote from the office of theNew York Evening Post:—

“Let me add my congratulations to the thousands you must have already received for the noble speech in defence of our time-honored championship of the seas. It is thorough, searching, manly, and unanswerable.”

Charles L. Brace, the enlightened Reformer and author, wrote from New York:—

“Will you allow me, as one of your great ‘Constituency,’ to express my admiration of your speech on the Trent affair, as reported by telegraph to-day? Its enlightened views, broad treatment, sound policy, and thorough historical soundness make it, to my mind, the first of your many public efforts in oratory.”

Professor Henry W. Torrey, of Harvard University, wrote:—

“I hope that you will allow an old Whig, who has often differed from you in political opinion, though never seduced into supporting Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Bell, to congratulate you on the position you have taken and so ably maintained on Neutral Rights. From the first moment I trembled for the consequences of the seizure of the insurgents. Captain Wilkes’s act appeared to be a portentous blunder, matched only by the truculent indorsements that followed it. It consoles me, however, that this deed has become the occasion for teaching our people their own antecedents, and proving to the world their ability to mortify their pride in the presence of higher claims.… You have nobly substituted theargumentum ab humanitatefor theargumentum ad hominem, which you so justly condemn.”

Rev. Convers Francis, the learned Professor, wrote from Cambridge:—

“Most heartily do I thank you for yourgreatspeech on Maritime Rights, which adds another to your many claims on the nation’s gratitude. It is a thorough, exhaustive, and most able piece of argument,—by far the most so which that question called forth,—and extorts praise even from enemies.”

John Penington, the bookseller, wrote from Philadelphia:—

“I have delayed reading the ‘Maritime Rights’ speech till I could enjoy it in the pamphlet form, corrected. It is an admirable compend, a perfectmultum in parvo. It is a verification of the adage, that ‘Doctors don’t like to take their own physic,’—our friend Bull being no exception to the rule. I feel much obliged to you for the treat you have afforded me.”

Alfred Pell, an intelligent Free-Trader, intimate with England, and manager of an important insurance office, wrote from New York:—

“I have a long letter from [Admiral] Dupont. He wrote when his last advices from the North were of the 22d December, so that he could not have known what action the Government had determined upon; yet he says, ‘Few persons in the fleet approved of the action of Commodore Wilkes, and some of the most intelligent condemned itin toto, yet all allowed that it showed high moral courage on the part of Wilkes.’ … You show we do not stoop to conquer, and I am sure that our friends on the other side will feel like the lady’s maid spoken of by Swift, who said ‘that nothing annoyed her so much as being caught in a lie.’”

John E. Lodge, merchant and personal friend, wrote from Boston:—

“Your speech is more complete even than Mr. Seward’s note; it is considered here as your very happiest and ablest effort. The English will open their eyes at some parts of it.”

Willard P. Phillips, merchant, wrote from Salem:—

“The truth is, that at last you have satisfied even the commercial community, and they acknowledge that you have more than ‘one idea.’ They express surprise to find that you have attended to anything but Slavery, which they supposed had occupied all your thoughts and all your time. I am sure that your speech has made many who have heretofore opposed you feel much more kindly towards you; and I congratulate you, both upon this change of feeling towards you, and also upon the delivery of your speech, which, so able and clear, has satisfied even the doubtful ones that the surrender of the ‘two old men’ was right.”

Stephen Higginson, merchant, wrote from Boston:—

“I have read to-day with infinite satisfaction your speech of the 9th on the Trent affair, and you must allow me to tell you how much I admire it. Crammed with unimpeachable authorities, the argument terse, vigorous, and eloquent, this speech sheds a flood ofAmericanlight upon the subject, which has been wanting to all other essays upon it which have come under my notice.”

George Livermore, merchant and student, wrote from Boston:—

“I read your speech on the Trent affair with unqualified admiration, as it was printed in theJournal, and I hope a large edition will be published in pamphlet form for preservation. I had supposed Mr. Seward had exhausted all that could be said on ‘our side,’ but you have given new interest by your wonderful illustrations. The whole tone of the speech is admirable.”

Waldo Higginson, an educated man of business, wrote from Boston:—

“Having just completed reading your great speech on the Trent Question, I am impelled to write you, to do my humble part towards thanking you for such a triumphant effort. I think it is exhaustive, abstinent of all not strictly germane to the weighty matter in hand, puts the country in a far more dignified position than it was left by Mr. Seward’s late letter to Lord Lyons, eminently courteous towardspresentEngland, and determines as far as possible that country’s position.”

Carlos Pierce, merchant, afterwards agriculturist, wrote enthusiastically from Boston:—

“I am especially grateful for a copy of your most remarkable and wonderful speech, delivered in the Senate January 9, on Maritime Rights. It came at an opportune moment, when the whole populace were terribly excited, ready to plan any kind of an expedition to sink the vessel that should be sent to convey the Rebels from Fort Warren. It is hardly possible for you to conceive of the change it wrought in public sentiment in twenty-four hours. It was as oil poured upon the troubled waters to their wounded pride. But it equally astonished and delighted your best friends and worst enemies, and won for you a host of new admirers. It was the most masterly and powerfully convincing argument I have ever read of yours on any subject. The people, the press, the nation, the world, will ever delight to honor the man that displayed the genius equal to such a rare opportunity, and was ready to strike so powerful a blow against a terrible wrong long endured, and in favor of our nation’s honor, humanity, and civilization.”

Robert K. Darrah, appraiser at the Custom-House, wrote:—

“I am constrained to congratulate you upon making the Thursday speech on the Trent affair. It has fallen on the community with the most happy effect. It was most timely and salutary, and most certainly the great speech of the session in a higher than a rhetorical sense. It will have a most wide and extended influence: first, to pacificate the public sentiment in this country,and also in England; and then to conciliate European powers, by acceding to the policy and principles they urge upon us; and, finally, by clinching England to the construction of International Law for which we have always contended, and thus driving her from her offensive pretensions pertinaciously adhered to for a century. The speech is applauded on all sides, even by those who do not love our party or you any too well.… The peroration is particularly splendid, argumentative, eloquent, and wise. I repeat, that all sorts of people applaud it, and it is believed that you have done more to put down our Rebellion by your action in the Senate on Thursday than all the major-generals have done in the last six months.”

Joseph Lyman, an early friend and college classmate, wrote from Jamaica Plain, near Boston:—

“You cannot think how much I was delighted with your Trent speech. I say nothing of it critically, but that the statements were truly admirable; and you know very well, that, when a case is well stated, it is more than argued, it is adjudged. But this is not why I was so much pleased with it. It was because it was so thoroughly in your best line and manner. It showed you to the public as I want to show you,—as a trulypractical man. I know as well as you the absurdity of those who call Antislavery a party of one idea, of abstraction and transcendentalism, &c.,—as if the one idea of Humanity did not absorb all others of practical legislation.”

Rev. Samuel M. Emery, of the Episcopal Church, and a college classmate, wrote from Portland, Connecticut:—

“It is rather late in the day to congratulate you upon the lofty position you have reached on the round of fame and usefulness, but not too late to thank you for your exhaustive speech on the Trent affair. I, as well as thousands of Union-loving people, thank you for that speech.”

William G. Snethen, Abolitionist and lawyer, wrote from Baltimore:—

“God bless Mr. Sumner! Who shall say that God has not spared him from the bludgeon of the murderer, not only to defend the poor negro in his God-given rights, but to vindicate our country from the insolence of England, and pronounce judgment against her past wrongs, while according forgiveness to the tardy penitent?“You said that the correspondence closed with Governor Seward’s letter to Lord Lyons. True; but his annotator is not less illustrious.Par nobile fratrum!I am curious to see how your speech will be received in England.”

“You said that the correspondence closed with Governor Seward’s letter to Lord Lyons. True; but his annotator is not less illustrious.Par nobile fratrum!I am curious to see how your speech will be received in England.”

John T. Morrison wrote from Washington:—

“I have been so much pleased with your clear, concise, authoritative, and conclusive vindication of the action of the Government in the case, and, withal, with the sublime eloquence with which you proclaim the triumph of American diplomacy over the long, sullen, and obstinate perverseness of English rule, that I feel it my duty to ask a few copies of your speech for distribution among special friends in Indiana.”

George Ely, of Chicago, wrote from Washington, where he was a visitor:—

“I had the pleasure of listening to your great speech, delivered in the Senate of the United States yesterday, on Maritime Rights. Permit so humble an individual as myself, and a stranger to you, to congratulate you upon the unequalled ability of your speech, and the triumphant vindication you have given to the American doctrine upon that question. The country will feel proud, in these times of trouble and doubt, of such an advocate.”

Ellis Yarnall, an excellent citizen, much connected with England, wrote from Philadelphia:—

“And now that we have had that speech, everything else that has been said on the subject seems of little worth. Everywhere I hear the same judgment; so that your friends may well congratulate you on what is doubtless one of the most brilliant successes of your life. It seems to me of the greatest importance that the speech should have large circulation in England. TheTimes, I fear, will hardly publish what, from its very moderation and its statesmanlike dignity, will tell so much for the Americans. Yet the leading men of all parties will read it, and I am sure it will greatly help our cause. Your rebuke of England’s warlike preparations is most timely, and I am confident good men in England will feel nothing but shame at the remembrance of the menacing action into which they were betrayed, in December, 1861, in a controversy on what you call a question of law.”

These unsought and voluntary expressions of opinion show that on this occasion, as when demanding Emancipation, Mr. Sumner was not alone. Weight and numbers were with him. Nobody better than these volunteers represented the intelligence and conscience of the country.

Back to Index Next