The Trent affair

Immediately after the Trent and San Jacinto separated on the afternoon of November 8, the purser of the former vessel, thinking doubtless that it would be quite an honor to himself to be first in reporting the matter to the British public, addressed a statement to the editor of the London Times, giving the “particulars of the grievous outrage committed to-day against the English flag” by the American captain Wilkes.

Then follows an account of the escape of the southern commissioners from Charleston in “the little steamer Theodora,” their arrival at Havana and embarkation on the Trent, where they felt entirely safe under a neutral flag. The purser then says that on the second day of the voyage a large steamer was observed ahead in the Bahama channel; that she was evidently waiting, and first gave notice of her nationality and intention by firing a round shot across the bows of the Trent, and at the same moment displaying American colors; that upon a nearer approach, a large shell was fired across the bows of the English vessel; that it “passed within a few yards of the ship, bursting about a hundred yards to leeward.” It is then stated that the Trent stopped; that a large boat containing between twenty and thirty heavily-armed men pushed off from the side of the San Jacinto under the command of a lieutenant, who boarded the Trent and demanded the papers and passenger list of the vessel, and afterward the surrender of the commissioners, all of which was indignantly refused; that the lieutenant then walked to the side of the ship and waved his hand toward the San Jacinto, after which, “immediately three more heavily-armed boats pushed off and surrounded the ship, and the party of marines who had come in the first boat came up and took possession of the quarter-deck,” and that the envoys were then seized and forcibly put into the boat against the protest of all the passengers and crew, including Captain Williams of the Royal Navy.

The account continues as follows: “During the whole of this time the San Jacinto was about two hundred yards distant from us on the port beam, her broadside guns, which were all manned, directly bearing upon us. Any open resistance to such a force was of course hopeless, although from the loud and repeated plaudits which followed Captain Williams’s protestation, and which were joined in by every one, without exception, of the passengers congregated on the quarter-deck, men of all nations, and from the manifested desire of some to resist to the last, I have no doubt but that every person would have joined heart and soul in the struggle had our commander but given the order. Such an order he could not, under such adverse circumstances, conscientiously give, and it was therefore considered sufficient that a party of marines with bayonets fixed should forcibly lay hands on the gentlemen named. This was done, and the gentlemen retired to their cabins to arrange some few changes of clothing.”

“A most heart-rending scene now took place between Mr. Slidell, his eldest daughter, a noble girl devoted to her father, and the lieutenant. It would require a far more able pen than mine to describe how, with flashing eyes and quivering lips, she threw herself in the doorway of the cabin where her father was, resolved to defend him with her life, till, on the order being given to the marines to advance, which they did with bayonets pointed at this poor defenseless girl, her father ended the painful scene by escaping from the cabin by a window, when he was immediately seized by the marines and hurried to the boat, calling out to Captain Moir as he left that he held him and his government responsible for this outrage.

“If further proof were required of the meanness and cowardly bullying in the line of conduct pursued by the captain of the San Jacinto, I may remark, first, that on being asked if they would have committed this outrage if we had been a man-of-war, they replied, ‘certainly not;’ and, secondly, that Captain Wilkes sent an order for Captain Moir to go on board his ship, and a second for Captain Moir to move the Trent closer to the San Jacinto. Of course not the slightest notice was taken of either order, nor did they attempt to enforce them.”

It will be noticed that the paragraphs quoted were specially prepared to excite the indignation of the British public. The entire account is very sensational and highly colored. Some statements in it are pure fictions, if the testimony of the officers who boarded the Trent are at all worthy of credence.

On November 9, while yet at sea, Commander Williams prepared an official report of the matter to be submitted to the admiralty as soon as he arrived in England. This account was substantially the same as that given by the purser, except that some of the facts are more distorted, and the number of fictions in it somewhat larger.

The report of Commander Williams and the statement of the purser of the Trent reached England and were made public on November 27. With a ministry and parliament composed largely of enemies of the United States, with nearly all of the rich and influential class unfriendly, with a press which exhibited only hatred for the North, and continually advocated the cause of the South, with a large population of merchants, tradesmen and cotton workers who were complaining on account of the injuries they sustained from the blockade, and who were anxious for the government to interfere in the American difficulty, it may readily be imagined what effect the news of Captain Wilkes’s act created in England. If it had been reported that the Americans had deliberately and wantonly captured and burned the Trent and her cargo, the excitement throughout the country would not have been greater. No single announcement in modern times has affected the English government and people as did that of Commander Williams and the purser of the Trent. With a few notable exceptions among the prominent men, it was everywhere proclaimed by both press and people that Captain Wilkes’s act was a violation of international law, an attack on the sacred right of asylum, a “wanton outrage and an insult” which should not for a moment be tolerated. The government was called upon to vindicate the honor of the British flag by instantly exacting a full and complete reparation, or, in the event of failure to obtain it, war must be declared against the Federal States of America at once, and such a castigation administered to the insolent Yankees as would thrice over atone for the indignity they had dared to offer to England. There was very little discussion of texts or precedents, or of the legality of the matter. The offensive and intolerant course which the English navy had pursued toward all neutral powers during and after the Napoleonic wars was apparently forgotten, because it was not convenient to remember it just then. Public meetings denounced the “outrage,” prominent men condemned it, and the English newspapers with very few exceptions used their utmost endeavors to stir up the indignation and the war spirit of the British people. The most violent abuse and malignant hatred of everything American was exhibited, not only in the ordinary newspapers, but also in the conservative reviews and quarterlies. A storm of indignation which has rarely been equaled swept the British nation from Edinburgh to Dover.

It is not difficult for a government to find a pretext for making war or parading its military power in the sight of another nation, whenever it desires to do so. The British government was not slow to act in this case. Lord Palmerston, its leader, was an enemy of the American republic, and was easily swayed by the popular feeling and by his own prejudice.

Preparations for war were begun on a scale which was sufficient to tax the utmost strength and resources of the United Kingdom. There was no delay after the reception of the news, but operations were pushed with a feverish activity both day and night. On November 30 the lords commissioners of the admiralty were instructed by Lord Russell to direct Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Milne to communicate fully with Lord Lyons at Washington. Earl Russell mentions the recent “act of wanton violence and outrage,” and says it is necessary to “look to the safety of her majesty’s possessions in North America,” and that care should be taken not to place any of the ships in positions “where they may be surprised or commanded by batteries on land of a superior force.” Arrangements were also made at once for a large increase in the British naval force in North American and West Indian waters.

On the same day an official order was issued forbidding the shipment of any saltpeter until further notice was given. Large quantities of it had already been placed in lighters at the London custom-house ready to be loaded on board outgoing ships, but the whole was relanded and returned into warehouses under the supervision of custom officers. On December 4, Queen Victoria issued a royal proclamation forbidding the export of gunpowder, niter, nitrate of soda, brimstone, lead and fire-arms from all the ports of the United Kingdom. At the great Woolwich arsenal there was the bustle of extraordinary activity, and work which was not suspended either for night or Sunday. Enfield rifles, cannon, and great quantities of ammunition and other warlike material were being loaded on board the great ship Melbourne for transportation to Canada. On Sunday, December 1, twenty-five thousand muskets were conveyed from the Tower and loaded for shipment. Large quantities of Armstrong and Whitworth cannon were immediately purchased by the government. Transports of large capacity were needed. The great steam packet Persia was taken from other service and employed to transport troops to Canada. The immense iron-clad ship, The Warrior, the best war vessel in the British navy, was hastily prepared for service. Unusual activity was noticeable at all of the dock yards. War vessels were being hastily put into a state of forwardness for real service.

The Earl of Derby was consulted by the government in regard to the “American difficulty.” He approved its policy and suggested to ship-owners that the captains of outward bound ships be instructed to signal any English ships which they might see that war with America was probable. This suggestion was strongly approved by underwriters, in whose imaginations privateers were already at work. No insurance could be had on American vessels on any terms.

In the stock market, too, a panic prevailed, and American securities dropped amazingly in view of the war which seemed at hand.

Preparations were also made for placing the military forces upon a war footing, and it was arranged to increase the army in Canada at once by an addition of thirty thousand men. Recruiting began with unusual vigor. The very flower of the British standing army were mustered and passed in review, after which they embarked for Halifax. Among them were all of the most noted batteries and regiments, among which were the guards, to whom was accorded the distinguished honor of taking part in all important wars. These were the first to start to the seat of war. They believed that they were going to Charleston to help the Confederates. The guards played the well known American air, “I am off to Charleston,” while embarking on their vessels.

Thurlow Weed, who was then in England, says: “I rose early on Friday morning and went down to St. James’s barracks to see a regiment of guards take up their line of march for Canada. Nearly fifty years had elapsed since I had seen ‘British red-coats’ whose muskets were turned against us. Something of the old feeling—a feeling which I supposed had died out, began to rise, and, after a few moments of painful thought, I turned away.”⁠[1]

One of the principal newspapers of London, in an account of the departure of the transports Adriatic and Parana with troops for Canada, said: “As the Adriatic moved out of dock, the large shields on her paddle-boxes emblazoned with the stars and stripes, reminded everybody of the remarkable coincidence that an American-built steamer, and until within a few months the property of American owners, should be one of the first employed in the transport of British troops to the northern part of the American continent, to operate, probably, against the country in which she was built.

“On the two vessels leaving the docks, the volunteer band took up a position on the extreme end of the jetty, and as the Adriatic slowly moved past, they played the appropriate airs, “I Wish I Was in Dixie,” and “The British Grenadiers,” followed by, “Cheer, Boys, Cheer,” and “Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot,” as the Parana passed, in each case closing with “God Save the Queen,” after which several parting rounds of enthusiastic cheers were exchanged between the multitude of spectators on shore and the gallant fellows on board the vessels.”⁠[2]

A Paris correspondent of one of the principal newspapers of New York said: “The sudden dispatch of arms and men to Halifax, the outfit of numerous heavy ships of war, the violent language of the British press and concurrence of the French press, are events out of proportion to the nominal cause of them, and indicate a secret design and a foregone conclusion,” after which the opinion is expressed that the British government from the beginning “was disposed to aid the rebellion for the purpose of dissolving the Union.”

The action of the governmental authorities as detailed thus far is well summarized by an English writer, who says: “The most energetic preparations were made by the English government to meet the contingency in case the demand they instantly made for the surrender of the passengers was not instantly complied with. Troops were dispatched to Canada with all possible expedition, and that brave and loyal colony called out its militia and volunteers so as to be ready to act at a moment’s notice. Our dockyards here resounded with the din of workmen getting vessels fitted for sea, and there was but one feeling which animated all classes and parties in the country, and that was a determination to vindicate our insulted honor, and uphold the inviolability of the national flag.”⁠[3]

Another English writer says of the situation: “The outrage savored so much of contemptuous defiance that the national feeling was wounded to the quick. ‘Bear this, bear all,’ was the prevailing cry, and not an hour was lost in making preparations for the war which it seemed to be the object of the Americans to provoke. Among other measures which showed how thoroughly we were in earnest, troops to the number of eight thousand were dispatched to Canada.”⁠[4]

The news of the boarding of the Trent by a Federal war steamer and the forcible removal of the southern commissioners was received at Liverpool by a private telegram soon after noon on the same day that the matter first became known in England. The intelligence spread in a wonderfully rapid manner and caused the greatest excitement among all classes. The utmost indignation was expressed on ’Change and in a very brief space of time the following placard was conspicuously posted:

“OUTRAGE ON THE BRITISH FLAG.”

The Southern Commissioners Forcibly Removed
From a British Mail Steamer.

“A public meeting will be held in the cotton sales-room
at 3 o’clock.”

The preceding announcement was sufficient to cause the assembling of a large crowd in the cotton sales-room promptly at 3 o’clock. Nearly all of the gentlemen who frequented the exchange were present. The most remarkable enthusiasm was manifested, and Mr. James Spence was called to the chair.

The following resolution was offered: “That this meeting, having heard with indignation that an American Federal ship of war has forcibly taken from a British mail steamer certain passengers, who were proceeding peaceably under the shelter of our flag from one neutral port to another, do earnestly call upon the government to assert the dignity of the British flag by requiring prompt reparation for this outrage.” The resolution having been read, the meeting demonstrated its concurrence with the views contained in it by long-continued and uproarious applause. After order had been partially restored the chairman proceeded to discuss the resolution. He said that “when the news of the outrage reached this town, the feeling created was one of surprise, mingled with indignation. He remarked that we had all heard of the sacred dignity of the American flag. That dignity was a means by which the persons engaged in the nefarious slave trade could at once protect themselves by hoisting the American flag, which fully enabled them to resist any attempt to search such vessel. He trusted it would not be allowed that men prosecuting so nefarious a trade should be protected, and that men peaceably proceeding on their own affairs, under the protection of our flag, might be forcibly taken out of our ships. [Cheers.] On the contrary, he believed that the people of this country would not by any means permit such an outrage. [Cheers.] He said, in having agreed to take the chair on this occasion, he did so without reluctance or regret; he felt deeply that he only expressed the feeling, not merely of the meeting, but of the community in general, when he said it was the duty of the people to press on the government the imperative necessity of vindicating the honor and dignity of the British name and flag.” [Loud and continued cheering.]⁠[5]

Other speakers who desired to present a slightly more conservative view of the matter were greeted with the greatest manifestations of displeasure, the last one being compelled to desist from the attempt to address the meeting. The resolution after being slightly modified was adopted.

While all England was in a state of excitement over the seizure a great meeting was held at Dublin, Ireland. The “Young O’Donoughue,” a member of one of the most ancient families of his native country, a brilliant and powerful young orator, addressed the people. Standing before a crowd of probably five thousand people, he boldly declared that if England engaged in a war with the United States, Ireland would be found on the side of America—a statement which the vast assemblage cheered with tremendous enthusiasm.

The tone of the British press was, with few exceptions, quite vindictive. Captain Wilkes received much abuse. Some very absurd threats were made, and much bluster was indulged in.

The London Times in discussing the matter was unwilling to admit that similar British precedents were entitled to be considered in justification of the act of Captain Wilkes. The comment was as follows: “But it must be remembered that these decisions were given under circumstances very different from those which now occur. Steamers in those days did not exist, and mail vessels carrying letters wherein all of the nations of the world have immediate interests were unknown. We were fighting for existence, and we did in those days what we should neither do nor allow others to do, nor expect ourselves to be allowed to do in these days.”⁠[6] This journal was the accredited exponent of British opinion at that time so far as the government and ruling classes were concerned. The following tirade of coarse abuse of Captain Wilkes and Americans generally graced the columns of the Times on one occasion while the matter of difference between the two nations was yet unsettled: “He is unfortunately but too faithful a type of the people in whose foul mission he is engaged. He is an ideal Yankee. Swagger and ferocity, built on a foundation of vulgarity and cowardice—these are his characteristics, and these are the most prominent marks by which his countrymen, generally speaking, are known all over the world. To bully the weak, to triumph over the helpless, to trample on every law of country and custom, willfully to violate all the most sacred interests of human nature, to defy as long as danger does not appear, and, as soon as real peril shows itself, to sneak aside and run away—these are the virtues of the race which presumes to announce itself as the leader of civilization and the prophet of human progress in these latter days. By Captain Wilkes let the Yankee breed be judged.”

The Saturday Review, the special organ of the aristocratic classes, said: “The American government is in the position of the rude boor, conscious of infinite powers of annoyance, destitute alike of scruples and of shame, recognizing only the arbitration of the strong arm, which repudiates the appeal to codes, and presuming, not without reason, that more scrupulous states will avoid or defer such an arbitration as long as they can.”

The London Punch published a cartoon about the first of December, in which America is represented by a little blustering slave-driver bearing the American flag. England appears as a large British sailor, who faces the little American and says: “You do what’s right, my son, or I’ll blow you out of the water.” The big Briton also says to a very ungainly American officer who appears: “Now mind you sir, no shuffling, an ample apology, or I will put the matter into the hands of my lawyers, Messrs. Whitworth and Armstrong.” These individuals were manufacturers of cannon which the government was buying at that time for shipment to Canada.

The London Herald was especially bitter in its attacks on President Lincoln and Mr. Seward, and in its condemnation of Captain Wilkes’s act. In one of its issues this newspaper said editorially: “Mr. Seward’s want of common sense, reticence and principle, have long been notorious to Americans, and recent circumstances have directed to him an amount of English attention which has made him equally well understood and despised in this country. Unhappily, until yesterday, we had not been able fully to appreciate the extent and depth of his moral and mental worthlessness. We knew that he had proposed to ‘annex’ Canada, but the idea was to us who know our strength and the weakness of the United States so utterly ludicrous that we did not, and could not, appreciate the folly and desperate wickedness of the man who could put it forward as a serious proposal. Since then Mr. Seward has done everything in his power to insult Great Britain. He has encouraged the piratical seizure of our ships; he has ordered the illegal arrest of British subjects; he has directed his envoys at foreign courts to resist and menace us.

“Unless Mr. Seward be simply out of his senses with rage, fear and helplessness—unless he be intoxicated with his own boastfulness till he believes his own statements—he must be aware that England can, before the present month is passed, destroy or take possession of every seaport in the northern states, raise the blockade of the southern coast and sweep the seas clear of the Federal flag. And yet with this knowledge, he has ventured on us an outrage which ought to be avenged by the immediate appearance of a British fleet in the Chesapeake, bringing the alternative of instant reparation or war.

“The chastisement which the offending government will receive will, we trust, be severe enough, without the stimulus of this additional atrocity to rouse the indignation of England into fury, and spur the timidity of her majesty’s cabinet into action. We are glad to know that the agent in charge of the mails warned the offenders in a tone which suited the occasion and the rank he held.”

The hope was then expressed that Commander William’s protest would “be speedily enforced by the still sterner protest of a British fleet, conveying even to Mr. Seward’s dull conscience and Mr. Lincoln’s bewildered brain a proper sense of the consequences which follow the perpetration on board a British vessel” of such a terrible outrage as the Americans had lately been guilty of committing. The last paragraph read as follows: “What we have to do is sufficiently clear. It is the duty of our government to demand the immediate return of the gentlemen stolen from under our flag, in honorable guise, together with an ample apology for a lawless act of piratical aggression, and to prepare for the rejection of such a demand by dispatching forthwith to the American coast such a naval force as may insure the total destruction of the Federal navy, and the instant blockade of all of the chief northern ports, if due satisfaction be not given without delay.”

During the entire period of excitement which was caused in England by the seizure of the commissioners, the concentrated wrath of the British press and public was poured upon the devoted head of Mr. Seward. His bold stand against any recognition being extended to the Confederates by England, and his recommendation that the coasts and lake frontiers of the United States be put into a condition to resist foreign aggression, caused all Englishmen who sympathized with the South to hate him. It was said in England, and continually repeated and emphasized by the British press, that Mr. Seward and the Federal government at Washington proposed to annex Canada to the United States; that a pretext was wanted for a quarrel and a war with Great Britain; and that the boarding of the Trent and seizure of the commissioners was a deliberate insult in pursuance of the secretary of state’s design to provoke a rupture between the two countries. Universal and widespread circulation was also given to a silly story to the effect that while the Prince of Wales was in the United States, Governor Morgan had given a dinner party to the royal guest, at which Mr. Seward and the Duke of Newcastle were both present, when the former said to the duke: “I expect soon to hold a very high office here in my own country; it will then become my duty to insult England, and I mean to do so.” There can be no doubt but that the Duke of Newcastle told such a silly story, and it is highly probable that a belief in its truthfulness strongly influenced the government of England in the active and hasty preparations for war.⁠[7]

Mr. Thurlow Weed, who had been previously sent to England to influence public opinion there in favor of the North, wrote to Mr. Seward about the matter. Mr. Seward was greatly surprised, and replied that the story was so extremely absurd that to give it sufficient notice to deny it would be almost a sacrifice of personal dignity on his own part.

The London Times having expressed at one time a “yearning” in England after American views upon the existing complication between the two countries, Mr. Weed ventured to supply the desired information in a letter which he immediately contributed to that journal. In this letter he entered a general denial of the assertion that the Federal government desired a rupture with England, and did what he could to undeceive the British public concerning the Seward-Newcastle story. Mr. Adams was referred to for a true reflex of American sympathies. The opinion was expressed that England had no real grievance of any substantial nature against the United States, as the boundary disputes and other questions of importance had been satisfactorily settled. The magnificent reception of the Prince of Wales in the United States, and the high estimation in which Americans held the Queen, also the fact that both nations were of kindred origin, and spoke the same language, were all dwelt upon. Gen. Scott’s recent letter on the situation contributed to the Paris press was mentioned.

Mr. Weed said that he knew nothing of the proposed course of the British government, but he expressed the opinion that a peremptory demand for the release of the envoys would be met by as peremptory a refusal, since in temper and pride Americans were as unreasoning as the bad example of their mother country could make them. He did not believe that Mason and Slidell were worth a war, and hoped the matter would be considered calmly and with due deliberation.

The same issue of the Times which contained Mr. Weed’s letter accompanied it with a leader replying to his views and asserting the English position. It was held that “the present prime minister of the Northern States of America” had long possessed “a deliberate and long cherished intention” to do England a wrong. The proofs were ample, being the Newcastle incident, the expressed wish of Mr. Seward to annex Canada, his circular to the governors of the northern states, and lastly the seizure of the commissioners on board an English ship. This was sufficient evidence “that upon his ability to involve the United States in a war with England, Mr. Seward has staked his official, and, most probably, also his political existence, and that whatever may be the advantage to America of a war with this country, to him it has become an article of the very first necessity.” Mr. Seward was then abused for designing so great an evil. Exception was taken to each point made by Mr. Weed, and the leader closed with the following paragraph: “But her forbearance (that of America) will never be tried. We can, we think, convey to Mr. Thurlow Weed the sentiments of every Englishman on this painful subject. We do not ask from America courtesy or affection, respect for our Queen or regard for our Prince. These things are hers to give or withhold. We do not even ask that amount of fair treatment which we are in the habit of receiving from other nations. We have long ago made up our minds to dispense with that; but we do demand that she abstain from actual outrage, or that, if it is committed, she shall make reasonable reparation. If she will do this, it is well; if not, the alternative will not come in the desired form of protracted negotiations.”

When the news of the seizure of the southern commissioners was received in Europe, General Winfield Scott was in Paris. It was his intention to spend the winter in southern Europe. The storm which the news created in England extended in a less degree to France. The newspapers of Paris condemned the act. It was fortunate, perhaps, that General Scott was in the French capital, for he, being one of the most distinguished of Americans at that time, was best able to command a hearing in England and France. He immediately addressed a letter to the Paris press giving his views of the situation, which he comprehended with the greatest clearness. He expressed the opinion that the seizure could not have been authorized from Washington, and that the matter was capable of being amicably adjusted.

The following paragraphs taken from the general’s letter very nearly indicate grounds which Mr. Seward assumed afterward in the settlement of the case.

“If, under the circumstances, England should deem it her duty in the interest of civilization to insist upon the restoration of the men taken from under the protection of her flag, it will be, without doubt, that the law of nations in regard to the rights of neutrals, which she has taken a leading part in establishing, requires revision.”

“If England is disposed to do her part in stripping war of half its horrors by accepting the policy long and persistently urged upon her by our government, and commended by every principle of justice and humanity, she will find no ground, in the visit of the Trent, for controversy with our government.”

“I am sure that the president and people of the United States would be but too happy to let these men go free, unnatural and unpardonable as their offenses have been, if by it they could emancipate the commerce of the world.”

A few days later the general became alarmed at the threatening state of affairs and hastily embarked for the United States, saying that if there was to be a war with England, perhaps he could be of some service to his country. In the sudden departure of General Scott, the London press found additional evidence of feelings in America hostile to England, as, they said, he had gone home in obedience to a hasty summons from Washington. This was not true. He returned because he regarded it as his duty to do so.

While the excitement was so great in England, Commander Williams suddenly became an individual of national prominence. His “protest” against the seizure of the commissioners was everywhere applauded. Much was made of him by the press and by various organizations. On December 12 a public dinner was given to him by the Royal Western Yacht Club of England. That he had evidently lost his head is apparent from the perusal of the “braggadocio” speech made upon that occasion. He gave such an account of the seizure of the envoys as would suit the occasion and make a hero of himself. The following verbatim extract is illustrative:

“Now, gentlemen, I have only one more subject that I know of on which to speak—the circumstances attending the gallant Federal marines rushing with the points of their bayonets at Miss Slidell. [Hear, hear.] It was at this point that she screamed, for her father snatched himself away from her—I do not mean snatched himself rudely, but he snatched himself away from her to break the window of his cabin, through which he thrust his body out. But the hole was so small that I hardly thought it would admit the circumference of his waist. It was then the lady screamed. I am charged by Mr. Fairfax ‘that my manner was so violent that he was compelled to request Captain Moir to remove me.’ [Nonsense.] But when the marines rushed on at the point of their bayonets—and I believe it is not necessary that I should make a solemn asseveration that it is true—[No, no]—when they rushed on at the point of the bayonet, I had just time to put my body between their bayonets and Miss Slidell—[oh!]—and I said to them, and if Henry of Exeter were here I would ask him for his absolution for it—[laughter]—I said to them, ‘Back, you d— cowardly poltroons.’” This ridiculous speech was believed, applauded and given a wide circulation.

The chances of an English war with the United States caused great excitement in Canada, and there was a general call to arms at once. The militia were called out and volunteers were everywhere drilled with the greatest exactness and constancy. Extra time was taken from business for military duties, and one Canadian journal estimated that an army of two hundred thousand men could easily be put into the field. Bodies of regular troops were in motion from one part of the provinces to another. Old fortifications were carefully inspected and new ones begun along the whole Canadian frontier. Toronto and other exposed cities were carefully looked after, and, although it was in the midst of a severe Canadian winter, preparations were made everywhere for immediate war.⁠[8]

There was in England from the beginning a very feeble undercurrent of sentiment opposed to the well-nigh universal view of the case, just as in America the feeling of congratulation was not quite common to every one. John Bright, than whom the United States never had a truer or more steadfast friend, took a very conservative view of the case. At a public dinner given at Rochdale on December 4, Mr. Bright made a speech in which he said that he did not indorse the seizure of the southern commissioners, but believed that it was an unauthorized act for which sufficient reparation would be made. He thought that the United States had evinced a great desire to be guided by wise and moderate counsels in the construction of cases under the maritime law. It had been asserted, Mr. Bright said, that this was one of a series of acts showing ill-will on the part of the North, but he believed that irritating accidents were unavoidable in a struggle like the present one and advised his countrymen to be calm. “Let us remember,” said he, “how we were dragged into the Russian war—we drifted into it. It cost a hundred million pounds. It cost the lives of forty thousand Englishmen; it injured trade; it doubled the armies of Europe, and it did not accomplish a single thing that was promised.”

He then reminded the meeting that large numbers of English people had recently emigrated to the Northern States, and that people bound by such close ties could only be involved in war by misrepresentation, and the most gross and wicked calumny. In conclusion Mr. Bright said he prayed that in future it might not be said by the millions of freemen in the North that in their darkest hour of need the English people, from whom they sprung, had looked on with icy coldness on the trials and sufferings of their terrible struggle.

There was one London newspaper which also dissented from the prevailing view of the case. After a careful review of the whole matter, on the first day after the news was received, the editor said he “could not understand the fairness of excluding the Unionists from such an obvious resort of belligerent power.”

“It would be asking too much that they should stand by and make no effort to prevent ships conveying to and fro persons and papers on the enemy’s service. It is at any rate to be desired that questions of this sort should be discussed without heat and decided without haste.”⁠[9]

Two days later the same journal said: “Our readers know that our opinion of the affair of the Trent has not been in accordance with that of the law officers of the crown. That opinion is unchanged. We believe that, interpreting the code of international law in the spirit in which that ill-digested code is laid down, Captain Wilkes was justified in taking possession of Messrs. Mason and Slidell. We have not, however, been so much concerned to establish that point as to deprecate sudden and passionate action, which might lead to the most serious complications, and we feel the greatest confidence that our government, actuated as it is by a spirit of moderation, will be met in a like spirit of calmness, moderation, and good sense by the government of the United States. It would indeed be a disgrace to the boasted civilization of the nineteenth century, if, in a disputed point of international law, there were no other mode of obtaining a decision than by a brutal resort to arms.”⁠[10]

These opinions, however, were of no avail. They were given so little consideration either by the people or the government of Great Britain that they might just as well never have been uttered. England proposed to settle the matter upon her own terms and without discussion, delay, or consideration of any views but those of herself.

AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.

1. British Annual Register, 1861.

2. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.

3. Magazine of American History, May, 1886.

4. Moore’s Rebellion Record: Diary, and Vol. III, Doc. 139.

5. Martin, Theodore: Life of the Prince Consort.

6. Paris, Comte de: The Civil War in America.

7. Principal London newspapers, the Times, Herald, Star, and Saturday Review, Nov. 28-30, 1861, also first weeks of December, 1861.

8. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.

9. Weed, Thurlow; Life of, Vol. II.