Table of Contents:
Bedford hope, M. P., on the independence of the South.A lecture was delivered by A. J. B. Beresford Hope, Esq., to the members of the Kilndown Library, on the subject of the civil war in America. After reviewing the history of the struggle Mr. Hope said.--Three hundred years ago Holland achieved its independence of Spain against even greater odds than the South has to contend with, and though there are twenty millions in the North against ten millions in the South, yet the singleness of purpose with which the latter seem to act, gives them great advantage over opponents whose counsels are divided. It was at one time fancied that slavery would be an element of weakness to the South, but so far from the slaves rising in a servile insurrection, they are actually a right arm of strength to their owners, and much as we may wonder at it they seem to be working hard for the very men against whom it was supposed they would be the first to turn their hands. For the snubbing matter of his proclamation declaring the emancipation of slaves, I praise Lincoln, for the horrors of war would be increased a thousand fold were a servile rebellion fostered.--But what will be the end of the struggles. One thing appears perfectly certain — the North cannot conquer the South. They may devastate it, they may sacrifice millions of treasure and a host of men, but they will never permanently subjugate, the South against its will. The struggle, in fact, at present is to decide whether the border States shall hereafter belong to the North or to the South. If you look at the map, it appears to be the inevitable design of Providence that the country should be divided into the five great divisions which I mentioned before. And this division would be well for North America itself. At present it is conscious not of strength but of numbers, and the United States hectored and bullied other powers because it had nobody to keep it in order. Its only neighbors are Canada in the North, and the weak Republic of Mexico in the South. Once divided into a number of States, each would be a check upon the other and each would fall into the position of an European nation. Each would have to maintain its frontiers, to keep up a standing army, to have a watchful Foreign Office. Well and good. Would that be any great hard ship? Every other country in the world does the like, and it is time that our gumptions cousins, now that they have become men and acquired bone and sinew, should assume the responsibilities of life, and no longer display that childish petulance which may have been excusable in the young days of the Republic. Such a division would be good, too, for the blacks themselves, because the slave owners, unfettered by the intrigues of a large party playing last and loose with this question, and another smaller party preaching immediate emancipation, another name for immediate starvation, would, for their own self interest, make such arrangements as would lead to the gradual abolition of slavery. We cannot help seeing that the North, with all its civilization, is the hotbed of anarchy, and that the South in spite of the dark blot that stains its escutcheon, is fighting with one heart and mind for its independence from a hateful thraldom.--We cannot help seeing that, while Abraham Lincoln is an incapable pretender, Jefferson Davis is a bold, a daring, yet politic statesman. We may wish to see the American States peacefully separated into the great divisions marked out by nature; we may wish to see bloodshed cease and peace restored; but I contend — and I know the majority of thinking men in this country agree with me, though they are too mealy-mouthed to say so — that the best and readiest method towards that end would be the establishment, as soon as possible, of the complete independence of the Confederate States. (Loud cheers.) The lecture was listened to with the greatest interest, and the audience expressed their approval of the sentiments expressed by frequent applause. The Bishop of Labuan, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Beresford Hope, for his instructive and interesting lecture, said he was sure all present would feel deeply grateful that their lot was cast in old England, and that this Government was not tossed shout upon the turbulent sea of democracy, which knew no stability and no rest. (Hear, hear)
The Canadian view of the rebellion of the United States.The New York Times says truly that the military movements undertaken in Canada are another ‘"symptom of a growing alienation between the two countries"’ The comments of our contemporary, appended to the letter of its Quebec correspondent, are not calculated to arrest this feeling or to develop Canadian faith in the friendliness of our Northern neighbors. If those who profess to rebuke mischief-makers themselves seize every occasion to misrepresent and ridicule all that pertains to Canada, the certainty is that the alienate complained of will go on at an accelerated pace, and that the ‘"mutual distrust and dislike"’ will be greater than ever The sneers of the New York journal at the gallant and heroic Williams and his compeers come with a bad grace from a country whose ‘"grand army"’ has for mouths been cooped within the capital by the Southern forces, and whose Generals and Brigadier Generals, and all sorts of Generals, are the drollest compound of merit and imposture ever known in a civilized country. Equally unseemly are the attacks of our contemporary upon the gallantry of the Canadian militia. A remembrance of the past, if no higher motive, should have taught the Times the virtue of silence upon this subject. The despised militia of Canada once succeeded in driving American invaders, defeated and humiliated, from British soil; and they will not shrink from their task it duty again calls them into service — The fleet racers of bull Run should be amongst the last to depreciate British pluck or soldierly capacity. The Times adopts the notion of its Quebec friend, that the New York Herald is the main promoter of mischief between the two countries. A certain class of the Northern people assiduously endeavor to produce the same impression. But this version of the affair is inadmissible. In the first place, the Times is the original mischief maker. So far back as May, it did its feeble almost to excite national animosity; abusing the course of the British Government, and pandering to the meanest passions of the New York mob. As matters, stand, we regard the Herald as the sole experiment of the opinion which rules in the Northern States. One fact alone establishes this. The Herald is prospering, whilst the Times, Tribune, and World ane languishing beyond measure. Its circulation is larger than ever, and of the four papers we have named. it is the only one whose advertising retains its old dimensions. From this circumstance we draw no unreasonable inference. The Herald is anti British and anti-Canadian; but in assuming this position it gives form and expression to the dominant antipathies of the people amongst whom it circulates.
A British journal on the American side of the Mason and Slidell question.The public mind is seemingly much perplexed about the legality of the apprehension of Mason and Slidelt, the ambassadors and bearers of despatches, on board the royal mail steamer Trent, when attempting to escape to Europe. When we refer to the law of nations, as laid down by the greatest of British constitutional writers, we find that the action of the United States Government, in this apprehension, has, at least, the sanction of ancient and modern law on this important point. Lord Stowell, one of the ablest of British jurists, says: ‘--The carrying of the dispatches of the enemy is also a condemnation, even if carried by neutrals. The ambassador of the enemy may be stopped on his passage, but when he arrives in the neutral country he be comes a sort of middleman, and is entitled to certain privileges." ’ Lord Stowell further declared — and the doctrine was acted upon by the whole Judge in a subsequent case, that of the Atlanta--‘"that the neutral ship, carrying dispatches was liable to be forfeited,"’ and decided accordingly. And Sir William Scott, in one of his celebrated judgments in a case of this kind, says: ‘"It appears to me on principle, that the fact of a vessel carrying the ambassadors or dispatches of a belligerent Power, whether knowingly or not, affords equal ground of forfeiture, if such vessel is seized by the opposing Power." ’ That the foregoing is the true state of the law at the present time may be gathered from the fact that in Her Majesty's proclamation, dated 15th April, 1851, during the Russian war, the following highly important clause appears: "To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all obstruction Her Majesty is willing for the present to waive a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the law of nations. But it is impossible for Her Majesty to forego the exercise of her right of seizing articles contraband of war, and specially preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's messengers or dispatches. Under these circumstances it is evident that the apprehension of Mason and Slidell has the sanction of the laws of nations.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.