obeyed this righteous fear she is to be re- | suggest, bring this country into peril, and create proached with "tame submission!" The a precedent for future mischiefs and dangers rest of the passage from the Quarterly is in the same strain; a reckless attempt to stir up the angry passions of the ignorant by vague declamation. Truly a worthy occupation for a great Conservative organ! against which the law of this country seeks to indeed I think I may infer, from the memorial provide. I hope the time will soon cometo which my bon. friend has referred that the time has come when the voice of the mercantile community will be raised, so that those who may be unwilling to hold themselves bound by Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality shall see that they cannot expect the support of the great body of their fellow-country men." On this matter the Opposition in the Lower House is no whit more sensible than Lord Derby or the Quarterly. Was ever, for example, a deliberative assembly forced to listen to greater twaddle than the observations of Lord R. Montague in the debate on the "Georgia"? But the conduct of the great Conservative leader has been in no wise more dignified or discreet. His amazing speech on the seizure of the steam-rams seemed to indicate, in the judgment of Mr. Punch, that he had renounced the hope of governing the country for the pleasure of defending the Messrs. Laird. But in any circumstances, it was most unseemly that the cause of these ship-builders should have been espoused by Lord Derby. The proceedings of these men have deserved the gravest censure. We have now and again, and chiefly from that party which supports the doings of Messrs. Laird, much declamation about the commercial immoralities of tradesmen. But they have no word of reprobation for the conduct of men in a comparatively high position, who for the pure that? Should we have done anything to prevent love of gain, bring themselves into collision the South from sending their ships to sea or not only with international but with their have refused to them the hospitality which our own municipal law, embarrass the Govern-neutrality bound us to concede equally to both sides ?" ment, and expose their country to the imminent danger of war. Nay, Lord Derby does not hesitate to defend these men, and accuses Lord Russell of having interfered to stop their proceedings only because they are tories! The Attorney-General, in the debate on the 13th of May, on the question of the "Georgia," treats this matter in a very different and far more becoming style: "Addressing myself first to the last and most generally important of the topics of my hon. friend's speech, I need hardly say that we are quite sensible of the gravity of the public evil which exists when merchants or any other persons in this country hold themselves at liberty, by all kinds of shifts and evasions, to treat with contempt Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, to make themselves parties in a war in which Her Majesty has proposed to be neutral; to shelter themselves under all those opportunities of escape which the just regard of the law of our country for persons accused of any offence invariably offers; and to do acts which in their immediate effects place in peril the friendly relations of this and another great nation, and which in their ultimate consequences may possibly recoil with the most disastrous and destructive effect upon the trade and commerce of their own country. The Government had some right to hope that in the circumstances of such a war as this, English merchants occupying eminent positions would not spell out the law under the advice of lawyers, saying, I cannot find it in the bond,' and, availing themselves of every means of escape which ingenuity can factured a navy, but they had beaten the "Not only had the Southern States manuFederal ships, which had long ridden the sea, so completely that the latter were now fain to avoid the conflict. How were we to blame for It is certainly new to us that the "Alabama" or the "Florida" or "Georgia" has faced and "beaten" the Federal navy, or that these marauders were 66 sent to sea by the South." On the contrary, they sailed from neutral ports, and their work has been to plunder merchantmen. "It cannot be too often repeated," says the Times, "that the whole essence of the transactions now in question consists in the identity of the port of equipment with the port of departure for hostile operations." It is not less idle to confuse this plain question, with the fluent Lord Robert Cecil, by expatiating on the number of muskets and percussion-caps we sell to the Federals. There is no parallel between the cases. We would gladly sell these things to the Confederates also, could they come here to buy them. Indeed, have we not done so? Have none of the blockaderunners carried munitions of war? But to sell munitions of war to belligerents, which they use in their own country, is one thing; it is quite another thing to send out vessels from our ports ready for the business of destruction, while their own ports are sealed against them. It may be that our neutrality is more mischievous to one of the belligerents than to the other; that we cannot help. It is not the less our clear duty to ob serve neutrality and enforce our law, careless of consequences. The blockade has reduced the Southern States to the position of an in to have been stopped if their purpose had been known. They were vessels whose destination which were tainted with the offence of having was to roam about, never getting home, and violated our neutrality. They were vessels, therefore, which on every ground had no claim to the hospitality of the country, and he was bound to say that both our international obligations and a due regard for our own interests ought to have led us to exclude them from our ports." land power, and the point then is this, Can | Now, these were vessels which avowedly ought a power, without seaports, or with its ports closed, defeat a blockade, or evade its natural disadvantages, by sending from the open ports of neutrals a fleet of cruisers to infest the sea? If this question is to be answered in the affirmative, maritime powers would do well to humble themselves before inland states. England would have more to fear from a war with Saxony than from a war with France. All the eloquence of the Opposition will not lead the country to a conclusion so absurd. The Government action in the case of the "Alexandra" and the "Pampero," and above all their promptitude in stopping the steam-rams, deserved and has received the hearty approval of the nation. In the last instance especially it was well for our interests, not to put it higher, that the Ministry had the courage to do right, undeterred by the foolish taunt that their so acting arose from fear only. Had the disgraceful trick by which the "Alabama" escaped been allowed to succeed a second time, we could hardly have escaped an American war. For our own part, we do not think that the Government has yet gone far enough. The position indeed of the Ministers is a very hard one. They are compelled to come to an immediate decision on points at once delicate in themselves and involving the most serious consequences, knowing well that the views of law laid down for their guidance by the Crown lawyers will be directly contradicted by Sir H. Cairns and his brethren on the left of the Speaker, and that Chancellor Kent, Mr. Story, and Lord Stowell will be cited on both sides with equal confidence and equal prolixity. But had they regarded the lawyers less, and considered this great question as practical statesmen, we think they would have excluded these privileged buccaneers from our ports. The Americans themselves in 1794, in the words of Historicus, established the rule, " that vessels which have been equipped in violation of the laws of a neutral State, shall be excluded from the hospitality which is extended to other belligerent cruisers, on whose origin there is no such taint." In the debate on the "Georgia," Mr. T. Baring urged strongly on the Government the propriety of enforcing this rule : "When a vessel left our ports, which would have been arrested here had her objects been ascertained and her construction certified, and proceeded to carry into effect proceedings of hostility against an ally to the endangering of the peace of this country, it seemed to him that it was the duty of the Government to avail themselves in her case of the powers which they possessed, and to shut our ports against her. There is no occasion to embarrass this question, as Mr. Baring did at the close of his speech, with any alternative suggestions of changing our law. The present emergency does not call for any such change. Nobody can dispute the right of a neutral sovereign to qualify by conditions the use to which his territory shall be put. And no condition can be more reasonable than to require a strict compliance with the law; and if that compliance be refused or evaded, then the use of the territory may be refused. Why then should not England carry out this rule in the case of the "Alabama"? The Attorney-General, in replying to Mr. Baring, stated certain considerations which had induced the Government to shrink from this step. The first was that Federal agents, though without the sanction of the Federal Government, have been trying to enlist Irishmen under false pretences. That is, of course, no answer at all. The next was that the Federals have made "extraordinary and extravagant" demands on us for compensation for the injuries done them by the "Alabama." We cannot say that this reason is very much better than the other. In the first place, if the Federals are unreasonable just at present, is that matter for surprise? The English public, we suspect, has very little notion of what the Federals have suffered from these cruisers. The actual loss sustained by burning and capture has been estimated at £3,000,000 sterling. Worse than this, the danger, with the consequent rate of insurance, has destroyed almost entirely the American marine. From statistics quoted by Mr. Cobden in the House of Commons, it appears that, while in 1860 two-thirds of the commerce of New York was carried on in American bottoms, in 1863 three-fourths was carried on in foreign bottoms. Of course every nation must suffer by war-a truth England just at present would do well to lay to heart; but yet we cannot wonder that a nation which has suffered so much should be somewhat out of temper. In the next place, is the extravagance of the Federal demands any reason why we should neglect our duty? It may be "extravagant" in the Federals to ask us to pay for the mischief which the “ Alabama” has done; but can they not, with all reason, ask us not to give her the means of doing more? We may not be responsible for the past; but are we entitled to aid her in her career of destruction? Why should her escape, accomplished by trickery and deceit, be held as having altered her character? Thirdly, however, says the Attorney-General, we have not established the fact that these vessels were equipped in violation of the law. "We may have strong reason to suspect this; we may even believe it to be true;" but we have not legal proof. Now we venture to think there is a great fallacy here. If the "Alabama" were still in the Mersey, asserting her innocence, we should certainly have to bring forward "legal proof" of her illegal equipment before confiscating her. But by her flight, and the circumstances of that flight, the onus of proof has surely changed. She has, as it were, outlawed herself. The facts, in short, justify us in assuming her guilt. Against whom was levelled that severe re buke which we have quoted above from the speech of the Attorney-General? Was it not against the builders of the "Alabama? Lord Russell, too, in an official document, describes "the cases of the Alabama' and the 'Oreto' as a scandal, and in some degree a reproach to our law." Is it not plain then that we regard the "Alabama" as having violated our law? is it not certain that she narrowly eluded our grasp and are we not entitled to say that until she has been purged from this taint she shall be excluded from our ports? It is one thing to refuse to countenance and support; it is another thing to condemn. "Legal proof" is required for the latter only. We have every right to say to a ship which escaped from our ports through fraud, that she shall derive no benefit from us until she shall have been cleared from the suspicion of having abused our hospitality. "It appears to me," said Mr. Cobden, in reply to the Attorney-General, would be the immediate precursor of war with America. If they do not mean what they say, they are chargeable with the crime of having endeavoured to mislead the judgments and rouse the passions of the people, on a delicate and dangerous theme, for the purpose of advancing their party interests. In neither view are they fit to govern the country. In the former they would go to war willingly; in the latter they might be forced into it in order to redeem their pledges and fulfil hopes they had excited. When we turn to Europe we find the policy of the Foreign Office attacked with not less bitterness, but by no means defended with the same warmth. As in American affairs, it has been a policy of peace and moderation, and has therefore offended all enthusiasts; while no sympathies like the sympathy many have with the Federals are enlisted on its behalf. But when the present excitement shall have cooled down, the prudent and temperate action of the Government will be appreciated. Even now we shall endeavour to consider dispassionately what their conduct has been, and what their opponents would have had it to be. To enter minutely into the rights and wrongs of the Schleswig-Holstein dispute would be beyond the scope of this article.* * On the question of right at issue between Denprevail between Danish and German writers. The mark and Germany, great differences of opinion question itself is exceedingly complicated, and few Frenchmen or Englishmen can be expected to sift thoroughly the intricacies of an old and inveterate quarrel between two different nationalities. Thus much is clear, that German ambition was at the bottom of it disguised by sympathies, no doubt sincere, with the German subjects of the King of Denmark. Reduced to its merely political proportions, and divested of the sentimental and antiquarian nonsense which covers the real facts and tendencies of the case, the matter in dispute between Denmark and Germany is simply this: that the southern part of the Danish monarchy, the Duchy of Holstein, being subject to the jurisdiction of the German Bund, and the adjacent Danish province, the Duchy of Schleswig, being partly inhabited by and Prussia, desired the union of the said Duchies, Germans, the Diet of Frankfort, headed by Austria with the design that not only Holstein, but also Schleswig, might become a part of the "That the only thing remaining that you can do to conciliate the American people under the cruel losses they have undergone at your hands, is to say that henceforth you will deny hospita-possibly lity to vessels that have been built in your ports, that have clandestinely left your ports, that have been manned and armed from your ports, because you are convinced that to allow such ships to come back here after committing havoc upon a friendly nation, would be to injure yourselves and endanger your own best interests in the future." But though the Government may refuse to go this length, we owe them much for having opposed the frantic partisanship of the Opposition. If the Conservatives really mean what they say, their accession to power N-18 VOL. XL. Federal territory. For this reason Austria and Prussia, in the diplomatic correspondence of 185152, which concluded the war between Denmark and Germany of 1848-1850, proposed an arrangement to the effect that the whole Danish monarchy should be connected by a homogeneous constitution, probably knowing that such a union between the Danish and German provinces was impracticable, and not without a hope, that by the breakdown of this arrangement, the Duchy of Schleswig would follow the Duchy of Holstein into the loving this proposal unwillingly, and the diplomatic conembrace of the German Bund. Denmark accepted troversy between Denmark and Germany, from Denmark as long as the present democratic institutions of Denmark are maintained." Probably, however, this motive was not a leading one, and M. Bismark's observation was merely a slight indulgence in his favourite pleasure of saying insulting things. The dislike of Prussia for Danish institutions is a very mild emotion compared with her love for Danish territory. The foolish people are led away on the old scent. The King and his ministers have dazzled them with the prospect of territorial acquisitions, and have easily made them forego their designs of internal reform. They have given up the work of obtaining liberty for them Besides, thes have been the subject of such | Germany will never be on good terms with frequent and elaborate discussion that the public, now in possession of full information, has formed a pretty decided opinion regarding them. Impartial men have generally come to the conclusion that Germany and Denmark are both weak on the real merits of the question, though not perhaps in a like degree. Candour must allow that, at the outbreak of the war, both were obnoxious to the reproach of having made light of the engagements of 1851-52. In the aspect which affairs have now assumed, it is idle to discuss the claims of the Prince of Augustenburg. No one can doubt that the real causes of the war lay far deeper than a desire to vindicate his rights. Popular enthu-selves, and have turned to the more attrac siasm was excited throughout all the minor tive pastime of robbing their neighbours. German States by the cry of nationality. On the other hand, can it in fairness be deStill more was it excited by the recollection nied that the Constitution of November was, that the previous settlements of 1851-52 had on the part of Denmark, a breach of the been brought about by the reactionary go- engagements of 1851-52? It may be true vernments of that period in order to spite that Denmark was goaded to this. How the popular leaders. The people were re- she was goaded to it by German bullying solved that, former efforts having proved and German meddling was shown convincunavailing, this time at least there should ingly in the Revue des Deux Mondes of be no mistake. Austria and Prussia were February 15. Still, whatever may have been urged into action partly by a fear of the the provocation, the false step was made; lengths to which this popular enthusiasm and the enemies of Denmark obtained their might reach, partly by a dislike to the libe- vantage-ground. The Germans had then a ral institutions of Denmark, most of all by pretext for saying: The conditions of 1851their old rivalry for the hegemony of the 52 having been violated, we shall resume the German race. The last motive could not position which before that time we held. well have been acknowledged, but the first This war, in fact, though fostered by the two have never been concealed. Count German aristocracy for its own ends, was, in Rechberg admitted the first when, in answer its origin, a war of democracies--the demoto Lord Bloomfield's suggestion that the cracy of Copenhagen against the democracy allied troops should halt on the Eider, he of Germany; and Europe is now teaching said, that were they to act with such mode- us the same lesson as America has taught ration, "the excitement in Germany would us-a lesson to be learned in the history of become uncontrollable and might lead to every nation and every age-that such wars civil war." M. Von Bismark admitted the are uniformly the most irrational, the most second to Lord Wodehouse, with his accus- inveterate, and often the most lasting. The tomed contemptuous candour: "The fact is, judgment of M. Forcade on this unhappy conflict is as true as it is severe :-" Quant à nous, nous avons considéré l'effusion si inutile de sang à laquelle on a vu aboutir la discussion de l'Allemagne avec le Danemark, comme un des faits les plus tristes et les plus honteux de notre siècle. Cette guerre si disproportionnée, si intempestive, guerre dont les résultats étaient dominés d'avance par la nécessité d'une délibération Européenne, laissera dans l'histoire de notre temps le souvenir et la tache d'un crime absurde."-(Revue des Deux Mondes, April 1855 until the outbreak of the present war, turned exclusively upon the merit of the homogeneous constitution, framed according to the dictates of Germany. When the statesmen of Berlin, Vienna, and Frankfort perceived that the constitution (of 1855) still left the Danish element in the Danish minority uppermost, and that measures were taken to prevent the union of Schleswig with Holstein, and the secession of both from Denmark to Germany, they immediately found fault with the political scheme invented by themselves, and de 15.) cette manded the repeal of that constitution. Nor were they satisfied with its abolition, as far as Holstein was concerned, which took place in 1858; what they wanted was to see it equally repealed in But if, in the origin of the quarrel, neither Schleswig. This is the reason of their strong ob-party can be held free from blame, the case jection to a constitution which unites Denmark Proper and Schleswig. What they want is one uniting Holstein and Schleswig. To this the King and Government of Denmark refused to submit. is very different when we look to the way in which the quarrel has been prosecuted. Denmark has certainly committed grave city.* She has vindicated her military prowess in an easy warfare, she has shown that her artillery is good, and that when her strength is fivefold that of her enemy she can conquer; and she has bought these triumphs at the cost of the hatred of all non-German Europe. Whatever may be the issue of these present troubles, Prussia will be found to have paid a dear price for her success. Four years ago all England would have been ready in arms to guard for her the Rhine. Now, should Louis Napoleon stretch out to seize that "natural frontier" of France, no Englishman would say him nay; or if, would do so from dictates of policy alone, with no heart or fervour in the cause. errors. We may even go to the length of the Times, and condemn the Danes "as intractable, and even infatuated." She made all her concessions too late. Undoubtedly she acted in good faith, but her delays afforded pretexts of which her unscrupulous foes were not slow to avail themselves. By her hesitation in accepting the Conference, she gave these foes an excuse for inflicting on her the most grievous disaster of the war. And yet more grave condemnation awaits the conduct of M. Monrad when he ordered the hopeless defence of Dybböl, from a selfish dread of the mob of Copenhagen, against the opinion of his generals. But all this, and much more than this, should be forgiven to a brave people sustaining a des Still, for the beginning of the "absurd perate fight for national existence. Nor can crime" both the parties to it are responsible. any one pause to think with severity of the Our judgment on this matter should not be conduct of the Danes when he contrasts with swayed by generosity, or by the admiration it the conduct of the Germans. The deceit which steadfast courage against irresistible of the two leading German States has been odds must always command, or even by insuch as to baffle the efforts of any honest dignation at the conduct of one of the bellidiplomacy. Whatever may be the merits of gerents subsequent to the outbreak of the war. the original dispute, the conduct of Austria When some two millions of brave men conand Prussia has indicated, not obscurely, the front with steadfast resolution the overbearing dishonesty of their ultimate aims. They violence of forty, onlookers feel strongly made fair promises; they professed noble stirred in favour of the former, whatever be motives: they have broken the former, and the merits of the controversy. Providence belied the latter. They have veiled their may be generally on the side of the strongest covetousness and rapacity under various high- battalions; but human sympathies are genesounding pretexts-each to be cast aside rally on the side of the weakest. Yet such when its immediate purpose had been served. sympathies the statesman is bound to restrain, They invited English mediation: they en- at least so far as to allow them no influence couraged the Diet to treat that mediation with on his conduct. The beginning of strife is disregard. When Denmark had professed like the letting out of waters; but the chanher willingness to concede all they asked, nels into which these waters thay flow must they took advantage of an excusable tardi- not divert our attention from the causes ness in this profession, pretended disbelief in which set them loose. It is to these beginits sincerity, and proceeded to enforce their nings that we should look in forming an opidemands by arms. They announced that nion of the conduct of our Government, still their sole object in invading Schleswig was to more in the endeavour to find out the fitting secure the abrogation of the Constitution of end of the trouble. The Danes were not in November. Denmark undertook to abrogate the right because they have sustained manthat constitution, and only asked time to do fully a hopeless struggle; the Germans were so in legal fashion. The undertaking was not in the wrong because they have a giant's slighted, the time refused, the invasion hur-strength; nay, not even because they have ried on. In open defiance of all right, in tyrannously used it. direct violation of their own promises, they treated Schleswig as a conquered country; and now the occupation and the wanton plundering of Jutland has changed the whole aspect of the war, and converted it into an unconcealed attack on the existence of the Danish monarchy. To all this deceit and treachery, Prussia can boast of having added deliberate cruelty. She is still the same Prussia as of old-the Prussia which seized Silesia in 1741, the Prussia which stooped to receive Hanover from the French in 1806-combining, in the language of Mr. Fox, all that is contemptible in servility with all that is odious_in_rapa Taking, then, this view of matters, are' we led to conclude that the policy of the Government has been blameworthy? In the first place, in this instance,at least, Lord Russell did not "meddle" unasked. The interposition of England was granted in obedience to the express request of Prussia. About a fortnight before the unexpected death of the late King of Denmark, M. Von Bismark, alarmed at the enthusiasm of the Diet, suggested to Sir A. Buchanan that the friendly mediation of * Applied to Prussia by Lord Ellenborough in a late debate in the House of Lords. |