THE DUTY OF ENGLAND AND THE AMERICAN CRISIS.
ritHE time has arrived when the national will on the Ame- rican quarrel ought to be expressed. A party, numerous in Parliament and powerful in the press, is beginning to intrigue for the recognition of the South. They are aided by the fears of the cotton dealers, who dread an intermission of their supplies, by the anxiety of commercial men who see their beat market summarily closed, and by the abiding dis- like of the aristocracy for the men and manners of the North. For the moment, their object is apparently to deprecate debate. They dare not as yet brave openly the prejudices of freemen, or advocate a cause based on antagonism to all that Englishmen bold dear. But they hope, if the nation can only be kept silent, they may talk the administra- tion into acts which will commit us ultimately to the Con- federated States. Their object was palpable in the slight conversation which occurred on Tuesday night. Mr. Dun- combe brought forward the case of some British subjects lorcibly enrolled in the Southern militia, and with the rash- ness which so often destroys the effect Of his sincerity, sug- gested what would in practice be an attack upon the South. Up sprang Mr. Bernal Osborne with an arrogant denial of his facts, to declare the North guilty of outrage in aiding an insurrection of the slaves. He was followed by Mr. Bright, who, with a curious reminiscence of his old /means in honour of the Republic, averred that an educated race could not be malevolent for long, and that discussion at pre- sent could only envenom strife. Englishmen, in short, were to look on at the greatest contest of modern times, and re- strain themselves, if possible, from even wishing for the right. This position, when assumed by the member for Liskeard, ex- cites in us, we acknowledge, but slight surprise. Sympathy for suffering is not the satirist's trade, especially when the sufferer is "low." But it is with regret that we see the member for Birmingham play, however unconsciously, into Southern hands. It is not from economists that we expect the mag- nanimity which can forget a tariff to defend a principle. But we du expect that a Member who is either a freeman or a firebrand, who protests that the tax-payers of Great Britain are the deluded serfs of a few families, will at least stand up manfully on behalf of the slave. The harshest aristocracy in the world is in arms to extend the most brutalizing of tyrannies, and it is not from the Radical leader that we ex- pect a protest against placing an obstacle in its course. Even O'Connell, unprincipled as he may sometimes have been, never on this point shrank from a vigorous assertion of the truth. In the very height of his agitation, when the vote of the American-Irish was invaluable, the great dema- gogue denounced the crime his feebler successor blandly declares it inexpedient to discuss. We cannot doubt that Mr. Bright will be found at last on the side of the oppressed, but to check discussion is to aid those who alone in a free community can be apprehensive of debate. There is too much reason to fear that the Government, though certainly not prejudiced in favour of the South, allows itself to be deceived as to the true state of public feeling. The country believes that the Cabinet, however cautious, may still be trusted where slave-owners are con- cerned, and, as usual, when satisfied, is quiescent. But the Ministry will make a fatal mistake if it confounds calm with indifference, or believes that the people would accept favour to the South either with apathy or applause. With the policy of neutrality, provided it be real, Eng- lishmen of all opinions may concur. The majority, with whom freedom is not a synonyme for free trade, would rather, perhaps, see Government resolute to prohibit the ex- tension of the area over which slavery is law, but the prac- tical difficulties are great. Many are willing to sit still and leave the issue to the American people and the Provi- dence which can use even the rowdies of New York to extend a great benefit to mankind. But if the neutrality is to be only official, if our " moral aid" is to be lent to one aide or the other, if the sympathies of England are to be formally expressed, there can be no reasonable doubt as to-our side. Every consideration alike of morality and convenience impels us irresistibly towards the North. There is no need to employ the vulgar argument that, coterie paribus, it is as well for a state without friendships to be on the winning side. The North, whether weary of agitation or eager for war, whether its enthusiasm remains or gives place to the reaction Englishmen expect, must still fight on till victory is achieved. The loss of the Mississippi is ruin to the West, and material interests as strong as moral obli- gations compel the Unionists to succeed. Still less is it necessary to follow Mr. Clay, and hint at the wrath our action may evoke in a nation whose friendship may one day be desired. There is an apology for that sen- tence when coming from Mr. Clay which could be extended to no other politician. He is not, as the Saturday Review asserts, a son of Henry Clay, or a philosophical Quaker, or even an advocate for peace. He is the Kentuckian who, after liberating his own slaves, set himself to create a free opinion in his State. The attempt was a dangerous one, but for once the chivalry found themselves outmatched on their own field. Mr. Clay unhesitatingly accepted every challenge, pistolled his way to free speech, organized a band of friends to protect his lectures when assailed by force, and succeeded in rearing a free soil party, which, to this hour, keeps Kentucky, though still a slave state, out of the seces- sion. His last act was to organize the Clay Guard, which saved Washington when first threatened with surprise, and it was hot from the conflict that he reached England and published the sentence so injurious to his cause. Apart altogether from these arguments, which, true or false, Englishmen instinctively repel, our prestige is involved in our sympathy with the 'North. The power of England in the world is based on opinion rather than on strength. It is as the unswerving friends of orderly freedom that we secure in every country the support of its noblest minds. We have not struck for Italy, yet our consistent advocacy of Italian freedom has secured us in the peninsula a place which the " strong friend" of Cavour has yet to gain. It is as the " only Eden freedom knows," the " rock on which the op- pressed a refuge finds," that England lives down the jealousy her prosperity inspires. Already the charge which intercepts European sympathy from her policy is that of selfishness. Already it is said we enfranchised slaves in order to weaken France, and embarrass our rivals of the West. How will that charge, now an absurdity, be justified if we, in a craven anxiety for cotton, consent to regard planters who rebel in order to perpetuate slavery, as men who are contending against wrong? Do "the principles of civil and religions liberty," so earnestly pressed on Spain, extend only to white men and Europeans, or is human freedom to be our policy only when convenient to customers ? It may not be wise or even right to declare war to redress a wrong—though Eng- land renounced acquaintance with King Bomba on half the provocation—but if England is to retain her position her sympathy must be with the slave. But we shall be told slavery is not the issue. The Con- federacy arms to support State rights ; the -Union to maintain the Federal claim. It is a political question, not to be decided on moral considerations. We blankly deny the fact. The Confederate States seceded because Mr. Lincoln was elected President, an election by which State rights remained wholly unaffected. Nor, accepting for the moment Mr. Davis's theory of the sovereignty of the States; do we admit that a State right has even been alleged. The infringement of slavery is no infringement of a right. If it be, why do we not restore escaped slaves, ask the Marshals to identify the coloured fugitives in Canada, and send back Anderson to Missouri, and to the stake P The first principle of our foreign action, for a generation, has been that slavery is not a right ; that it cannot be made one by any laws ; that it is simply an oppression which we are powerless to prevent. Admit that the States are ordinary belligerents, that there is no question of rebellion, no English interest involved, and still the cause of war is one which binds Englishmen of necessity to the North. The North, it is said, is by no means friendly to the slaves, who have in two instances been restored. That may be true, though Governor Andrews has formally rebuked a successful general for interfering on be- half of owners ; but what has that to do with the dispute ? The cause of war is at all events the extension of slavery, and Englishmen, unless utter hypocrites, are as opposed to the spread of the institution as to the institution itself. If the North wins, slavery, even if it continues to exist, must be restricted to the dominion it has already acquired, will probably lose Kentucky, and certainly forfeit Delaware. If the South is victorious, slavery will be extended from Missouri to Panama. Whatever the issue, those are the results, and on which side are Englishmen to stand ?
We do not care to argue the question apart from this great issue, though there is much to be said even on minor points. English democracy, at least, has no special reason to support the Cavalier against the Puritan, the careless half- Oriental men of the South against the thrifty God-fearing industry of the North. But discussion of that kind is too wide of facts to be more than a literary amusement. The quarrel, cover it with cotton as we may, is between freedom and slavery, right and wrong, the dominion of God and the dominion of the Devil, and the duty of England, we submit, is clear. It is to refuse to recognize the Confederacy, even if in that mysterious Providence which occasionally confounds faith, slavery should for the moment win the game.
Previous page
