« ZurückWeiter »
sure that some of the other Ministers will be able to steer through the first part of the session without his help. But Lord Liverpool, though fully sensible of the importance of the negotiations upon the Polish and Saxon questions, which were then at their warmest, will not hear of his absence. He writes again and again in the most urgent terms to impress upon him that nobody is capable of managing the House of Commons but himself. No one who reads these letters can doubt the earnest sincerity of Lord Liverpool's entreaties. It is impossible not to see that in his judgment the presence in the House of this verbose and blundering orator, at whom his adversaries affected to laugh, was of vital importance to the very existence of the Government. And in this matter at least Lord Liverpool was no mean judge. Whatever his other capabilities may have been, he was a veteran in Parliamentary warfare; and, as his long possession of power amply proved, he knew what style of leadership it was that could win and could keep the confidence of the House of Commons.
Lord Castlereagh's influence in the House must have been enormous, if Lord Liverpool rated it so high as to risk the evils of his absence from Vienna at such a time rather than forego it. In truth his matter was so weighty, that it did not suffer materially from the singularly inappropriate language in which it was conveyed. Those times were too critical to leave much room or taste for niceties on the subject of style. The House had been strung by danger to a higher tone than that of literary fastidiousness. It looked in its leaders for something more sterling than the glitter of eloquence; and was content to condone the metaphors over which Lord Brougham and Mr. Moore made themselves so inerry. Lord Brougham has himself confessed in later times that those who held Lord Castlereagh cheap on account of his style of speaking, cast rather a reproach upon representative government, which ranks eloquence so high among a Statesman's qualifications, than upon him. But though esteem and confidence were accorded to him very freely, and were never withdrawn so long as he lived, he does not seem to have awakened warmer feelings. He had not the talents that captivate the imagination, or the warmth of sympathy that kindles love. Men felt to him as to the pilot who had weathered an appalling storm, the physician who had mastered a terrible malady. They recognised his ability, and were glad in a moment of danger to have such a counsellor at hand; but they do not appear to have been drawn to him by the bonds of that intense personal devotion which has united so many great statesmen with their political supporters. Therefore his influence died with his own death. He was the head of a powerful party in momentous times: he led a nation to the highest pinnacle of renown; he laid down landmarks of policy, which have lasted through many revolutions of opinion and are respected still. But he did not found a school. His name contained no spell to bind together after his death those whom he had influenced in life: none of the tender reverence gathered round his memory with which disciples recall the deeds and treasure up the sayings of a departed master. Pitt, Canning, Peel, wielded an authority over their friends that endured beyond the grave. Those who had served under them clung to the memory of that service as a bond among themselves which neither divergent opinions nor clashing interests might relax. There were Pittites, and Canningites, and Peelites, long after the death of the statesmen whose names they bore ; and their cohesion has in no small degree affected our recent history: but no such adjective, in fact or in idea, has been formed upon the name of Castlereagh.
This effect of his calm, cold, self-contained temperament has undoubtedly in the first instance been damaging to his fame. The claims of other statesmen to the plaudits of posterity have been repeated noisily and indefatigably by bands of devoted admirers. Lord Castlereagh's memory, honoured only by the silent witness of events, has for the moment been thrust aside and neglected. No school of political thinkers have charged themselves in his case with the duty of sweeping away the detraction that gathers upon great men's tombs. But the time has come when these causes should cease to operate. It matters little to us now that his metaphors were Irish, his oratory dull, his temper unsympathising and cold. We are only concerned to recognise with gratitude the great results of his life-the triumphs that he won, and the peace-loving policy of which those triumphs were made the base. As the events in which he acted recede into the past, the pettier details in his character by which some of his leading contemporaries were repelled disappear altogether from our sight. From the point where we stand now, nothing is visible but the splendid outlines of the courage, the patience, and the faultless sagacity which contributed so much to liberate Europe and to save England in the crisis of her fate.
ART. VIII.-1. The American Union. By James Spence.
London, 1861. 2. Two Lectures on the Present American War. By Montague
Bernard, B.C.L., Chichele Professor of International Law in
the University of Oxford. Oxford and London, 1861. 3. The Constitution of the United States compared with our own.
By Hugh Seymour Tremenheere. London, 1854. 4. L'Union Américaine et l'Europe. Par Sidney Renouf. Paris,
THAT the causes have been which led to the disunion of the
United States--what quarrel has arrayed the North and the South in opposite and hostile camps, and made them regard each other with a frenzy of hatred almost without a parallel in the history of nations--what the conduct of England towards America both before and since the outbreak of civil war has been, and how that conduct has been requited, are subjects of sufficient interest to justify us in devoting a few pages to their consideration. They require a much fuller examination than we can bestow upon them within the limits of an article, but we hope to make the salient points clear.
Practically it now matters little whether the Federal or the Confederate States were correct in the view they respectively took as to the right of any State or States to secede from the Union. The question has passed from the jurist to the soldier, and will be decided not by argument but the sword. The war has assumed such proportions, that, whatever may be the theory of the North, it cannot deal with the secession merely as a rebellion. Southerners taken with arms in their hands are not hanged as traitors; and a blockade is established, which -worthless as we shall show it to be would be unmeaning and ridiculous, as directed by a Government against its own subjects. In point of fact there are two belligerent powers in presence, and the rights of belligerents are tacitly conceded by the North to the South, however the unpalatable truth may be denied in official despatches and diplomatic circulars. But History will ask which side was right in the commencement of the struggle, and we naturally wish to know where the blame ought to be thrown of provoking the terrible calamity of civil war. To assist in the inquiry is our present object, and for this purpose we shall avail ourselves of the recent work of Mr. Spence, The American Union,' which we have placed at the head of this article, and which has most opportunely appeared. We can hardly speak too highly of it. It is a most able statement of the whole case, written with remarkable knowledge and power ; and we strongly recommend it to our readers, if they wish to make themselves acquainted with the facts of the great American controversy, which are so often obscured by passion and distorted by interest. Mr. Spence tells us in his preface, that personal considerations and valued friendships inclined him, without exception, to the Northern side; but he warns the reader that he will soon encounter a current of reasoning adverse to the present doctrine and action of the Northern party. But, as he says, these opinions have not been adopted from choice, and are directly opposed to interest ; they are convictions forced upon the mind by the facts and reasonings contained in the work, and submitted to the judgment of the public. Such a man is, at all events, entitled to be heard.
It has been industriously represented by some, that the sole cause of the present quarrel is Slavery. It is supposed, even by persons who ought to be well informed on the subject, that the existence of slavery, having long been imperilled by the aggressive attacks of the Northern States, the signal for its destruction was given by the election of Mr. Lincoln as President; and the South, therefore, withdrew from the Union in order to protect its property in human flesh from confiscation. The war is by many, not only in this country but America, described as a crusade in the holiest of causes—to break the chains of the negro, and sweep away the urse of slavery from the continent of North America, from New Mexico to Maine. But a moment's consideration will show that such opinions are wrong, and not only not supported by facts, but directly opposed to them. It is remarkable that at no time for the last fifty years was the domestic institution, as slavery is mildly termed, placed under such safeguards, and recognised by Congress, and by the political party generally opposed it, so unequivocally as at the period of Mr. Lincoln's accession to office. The proof of this is overwhelming. It is well known that of the two great parties into which, before the outbreak of civil war, the North was, and into which it still is, divided, and which are known as Republicans and Democrats, the Republicans were the party hostile to the South, and the Democrats the party to which the South allied itself to fight its battles in Congress. "The Abolitionists are, we believe, to a man Republicans, although the Republicans are not by any means all Abolitionists. They have, however, steadily set their face against the claim of the South to extend slavery into new territories. The Democrats, on the contrary, were inclined, for political purposes, to favour the pretensions of the Southern States, not from any love for slavery, but because without such confederates they could not hope to make head on any question in Congress against their Republican opponents. It is also well known, that before the election of a President of the United States it is the custom for each party that brings forward a candidate to issue a manifesto called a 'platform,' in which it declares its political principles. The Republican platform in the last contest was adopted at Chicago in 1860, and the fourth article was as follows:
* The maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment, exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends.' Domestic institutions, of course, mean slavery. Further, an Act was passed by Congress, on the 2nd of March, last year, immediately before Mr. Lincoln formally entered on the office of President, which provides, that no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorise, or give Congress power to abolish, or interfere within any State with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labour or servitude by the laws of said State.' But were the views of Mr. Lincoln himself different ? Was he at variance with his own party on this question ?—and might he be expected to labour to undermine the principle embodied in the Chicago manifesto? Quite the reverse. He accepted it in the most unreserved and unqualified manner.
In his inaugural address he solemnly declared
'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists; I believe I have no lawful right to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with a full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they were placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, in the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read. I now reiterate those sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible—that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming administration,
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of States, including that of persons, held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose so far as to say, that holding such a provision as now implied to be constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.' Vol. 111.—No. 221.