Highly important from Europe.
Foreign intervention.
speeches in Parliament.
Butler's proclamation.
the British press on intervention.
&c., &c., &c., &c.,
The New York papers to the 27th (one day later) contain the details of the foreign news by the Arabia from
London, June 14th. They are very important, much more so than the telegraphic summary before published would have led us to believe.
The following editorial in the
Herald will show with what solicitude that paper regards the present attitude of foreign powers relative to intervention:
British insolence and American Power.
[From the New York Herald, June 27]
The details of the news by the Arabia are of a much more decided character than the telegraphic summary which we published on Wednesday seemed to indicate.
Our
Paris correspondence, too, throws great additional light upon the movements now going on in
France and
England.
It appears that the programme is, that
France will take the lead in the ‘"mediation"’ or intervention scheme for the settlement of the civil war in
America, while
England secretly pledges her moral, and if necessary, her physical, support; that the basis of the intervention is to be, if not separation as a
sinc qua non, at least a decision of the question by the votes of the people of the
Southern States, each State to determine for itself what is to be its future connection — whether with the
Northern States or the Southern Confederacy--and that, to carry out this arrangement, an armistice should take place for six months--the proposition to be made at
Richmond and
Washington simultaneously in the middle of July--and in the event of the
North refusing to accept the intervention, the
European Powers will immediately acknowledge the independence of the revolutionary States, and will also consider what further action it may be necessary and proper to take in the premises.
These views are confirmed by the tone of the
French and
English press, as well as by the full reports of the debates in the British Parliament.
The London
Post, the organ of Lord Palmerston and of
Count Persigny, in an article dated June 14, has the following very suggestive observations:
‘
"It is a matter of astonishment that long ere this some demand has not been made upon the
Government to take some steps towards effecting a cessation of hostilities which have proved so disastrous in their consequences to this nation.
The time may come, and that shortly, when it will become the paramount duty of neutral States to interpose; but now, as at the commencement of the war, they are undoubtedly bound to stand aloof."
’
The language of Lord Palmerston is in singular harmony with this.
He says: ‘ "We have
at present no intention of offering mediation between the two contending parties." And so Earl Russell in the other house: "Certainly there is no intention on the part of her Majesty's Government to mediate
at the present moment." This implies that the time may soon come when
England will "interpose."--Meanwhile,
Napoleon is to go ahead, as the Manchester
Guardian suggests.
The Emperor would prefer to have
England openly with him from the start, but she prefers that
France shall bear the first shock resulting from the insolent proposition.
Meantime, the
English population are to be worked up to the fighting point by such unprecedented harangues against a friendly nation as those indulged in by the ministers of the Crown against the same people.
’
The London
Times suggests the mediation at first of
Napoleon and the Czar, while
England holds back, and then goes on to say:
‘ --"If, as seems more than possible, the resolution of the Southerners avails to protract this war from month to month, then the time must come when the intervention of
Europe will be demanded by the interests of humanity, and, perhaps, accepted willingly by the exhausted combatants." In another article the same journal, representing, as it does, the oligarchy of
England, thus sounds the warning note upon another point:--"It cannot be doubted that we are approaching a time when a more important question even than that of an offer of mediation may have to be considered by
England and
France, The Southern Confederacy has constituted itself a nation nearly a year and a half.
During that time the attachment of the people to the new Government has been indubitably shown.
Immense armies have been raised, the greatest sacrifices have been endured, the persistence of the
South in the war through a long series of battles — some victories, some defeats — has shown the 'force and consistency' which are looked upon as the tests of nationality." The writer proceeds to observe that if the
South claim its recognition as an Independent Power, the precedents of the
British and Spanish American colonies, of
Belgium, and of
Tuscany and
Naples, forbid
England "to question this right when asserted by the
Confederate States;" and that "it is the duty of the
British Government to anticipate this possible event." ’
For some time past British statesmen and their press have put a restraint upon their wonted hostility to the
United States.
They are beginning, perhaps, to forget the affair of the capture of their
West India mail steamer, which so nearly involved them in a war with this country.
They then blessed their stars that they escaped, as it were, out of the fire.
At that time, too, they hoped that the insurrectionary States would succeed in their design.
They are now disappointed.
They see that the rebellion, fomented by British gold and influence, will soon be crushed, and they are becoming desperate.
Their long cherished purpose to divide the country they know will prove a failure, and hence their rage and their insolence to the
American Republic.
Lord Palmerston, for example, has the audacity to say that the
English Government will consider what is the proper course for it to adopt with regard to the proclamation of
Gen. Butler at New Orleans, just as if that were any business of Lord Palmerston or of the
British Government.
Earl Russell hopes that our Government, for its own sake, will repudiate the act of
General Butler.
This looks somewhat in the nature of a threat, as much as to say: ‘"You had better of your own accord rebuke
General Butler, or we will take you in hand, as we did in the case of the
Trent."’ Is
England to become censor general of the manners of all nations in peace and war, and to punish them if they do not square with her ideas of propriety?
Such impudence and presumption can find no precedent save in the folly of the
British monarch who stood on the sea-shore and ordered the waves to recede; but they flowed on in their majesty, and poor
Canute was soon compelled to escape from their power.
But let
England rest assured, that by any
European coalition she can form she will be as- unsuccessful in her designs against the independence, the union and integrity of the
American Republic, as were all her coalition for the dismemberment and destruction of the
Republic of
France.
At that time
France had no naval force with which she could cope with her rival.
Yet she held her own. But the navy of the
Republic of the
United States is more than a match for that of Britannia, which so long ruled the waves; and whereas
France was surrounded in close contiguity by
England and her allies, the field of operations in
America would be separated from the foe by a vast ocean 3,000 miles wide.
How much less, therefore, is her chance of success against a Republic mightier than
France, and that has remained unconquered ever since she had an existence?
Let British statesmen, therefore, beware of what they do. The cup of their Iniquity is nearly filled.
They have come second best out of two wars with the
United States; out of a third, perhaps, they would never come at all. The Southern fleet is completely used up. We have a powerful naval force left almost unemployed.
With this reenforced, as it will be next fall, by a tremendous addition of iron-clad gunboats, we will be in a position to annihilate the navies of
England and
France, and of all the maritime Powers of
Europe.
Canada and the
British West India Islands would fall, like ripe pears, into the lap of the
American Republic, and
Great Britain would cease to own a foot of soil in the New World, while perhaps
Ireland, taking advantage of her tyrant's difficulty would at last work out a successful revolution, and leave, ‘"the sister"’ island alone in its glory.
General Butler's proclamation before the British people.
In the House of Commons on the same night
Sir J. Waish rose to ask the Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government had received official information authenticating a proclamation attributed to
General Butler, the
Military Governor of New Orleans, menacing the women of that city with the most degrading treatment as a punishment for any mark of disrespect offered to any officer or soldier of the United States army, and, if so, whether her Majesty's Government had deemed it right to demonstrate with the
American Government against the issue of such an order.
He said that when he placed the notice on this subject upon the paper, he hoped that the answer he should receive would be that the proclamation in question was only one of
those common fabrications which had been so ingeniously circulated during the
American war; for it appeared to him incredible that a military officer, bearing a high commission, and invested with responsible command in the service of a great Power, should have placed his name to a document which must entail so much obloquy.
(Hear, hear.)
But he could not fail to observe from the journals of that morning, and from a letter written by the generally accurate New York correspondent of the London
Times, that this matter had been long and eagerly canvassed at New York, that it had excited great attention, and was there universally believed; and he regretted to add that there was no report or intimation of any formal contradiction or repudiation of the act on their part of the
Government of the
United States.
(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, the hope he had entertained was considerably weakened, but he still in-
dulged the expectation that the
Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would by his reply be enabled to allay the deep, indignant feeling which pervaded all classes in this country at the announcement of so extraordinary a proclamation, utterly repugnant to the spirit of the nineteenth century and to the usages of civilized war. (Hear.)
In the few observations he was desirous of making he should refrain from entering into the merits of the great contest now going on the other side of the
Atlantic.
In that
House they had hitherto maintained impartial and strict neutrality, and had exhibited a prudent and wise reserve, but it was necessary that he should make the observation that, in that unhappy civil war, it appeared, as all accounts agreed in stating, that wherever the
Northern armies penetrated into the
South they were uniformly received as invaders, and there was yet no evidence of the existence of any party, or fraction of a party, or of any individual scarcely, who entertained in the secessionist States other feelings than those of the most determined hostility to the
Northern-States of
America.
It would appear that such a feeling was universal, and that the
Southern men, rightly or wrongly, identified their cause with the sacred cause of independence and liberty and with love of country.
It was not wonderful, then, that throughout the
Southern States of
America the women should partake of the sentiments which their fathers, husbands, and sons entertained.
It might have been thought that the sentiments of honor which generally animated the members of a gallant profession would have made it impossible that anything like discourtesy or insult should have been offered to women by the officers of a Christian country in a civilized age. (Hear, hear.) The Northern States having established a military occupation at New Orleans found, as might have been anticipated, a bitter feeling of animosity awakened by the conquest of that city.
That feeling ought to have excited their generosity and forbearance.
Instead of that, however,
General Butler had issued a proclamation stating, that ‘"as the officers and soldiers of the
United States had been subjected to repeated insults from women calling themselves the ladies of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous courtesy, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States army, she shall be held liable to be treated as a woman of the town, playing her avocation."’
Did that language mean that the ladies of New Orleans, because they might happen to make some gesture or movement which an officer or soldier might interpret as an insult, were to be dragged to the common jail and subjected to the most degrading association with the vilest of their sex?
That, of itself, would be the most intolerable tyranny to which a civilized people in our day had been exposed.
There was another construction which those words might bear, so horrible that it could Hardly be intended by any mind but that of a demon, and be would not, therefore, further allude to it. But wherever this proclamation was spoken of in
Europe it was sure to be visited with one burst of execration--(hear, hear)--and it would be seen whether public opinion, which was said to be so influential in controlling despots, had any power over a rampant democracy.
Some honorable gentlemen might think a remonstrance against this proceeding would be a departure from the line of non-intervention, and might lead us into difficulties and complications with the
American Government.
Let the
House not listen to such mean and timid counsels.
We had interfered, and interfered effectually, on former occasions.
Many years ago a civil war raged in the north of
Spain, which was characterized by barbarous cruelty on both sides.
The British Government endeavored by negotiation to stop those brutal practices, and, though the war went on, they succeeded in their object by means of the
Elliott Convention.
The noble viscount now at the head of the
Government had perpetually interfered by way of remonstrance, and had tendered excellent advice to almost every Government in
Europe.
Not long age, too, Earl Russell remonstrated with this very American Government for blocking up
Charleston harbor with a stone fleet.
But surely our interposition was now far more imperatively called for by an act which tended to degrade human nature itself — to throw back civilization, and revive the spirit of a Ghengis Khan or a Nadir
Shah.
(Hear, hear.) It would be most unjust, without more reliable information on the point, to accuse the
American Government of any participation in this enormity.
It that Government at once signified its disapproval of this proclamation public, opinion would applaud its conduct.
On the other hand, if it showed any hesitation or delay in taking that course, he earnestly hoped that her Majesty's Government would gravely point out to them the necessity of vindication the national honor so foully stained.--(Hear, hear,) The honorable baronet concluded by moving for copies of any correspondence received from our Minister at
Washington relating to
Gen. Butler's proclamation.
Mr. Gregory was not surprised that such a motion should have been placed on the paper relative to the proclamation they were now considering.--The course which had been pursued in regard to it was neither improper nor unusual.
The honorable baronet had quoted certain precedents; but he need not go further than the discussions which had taken place in that and the other House of Parliament to show that when a great act of inhumanity had been committed by a foreign nation they were perfectly justified in commenting on the proceeding.
There had been a debate on the conduct of Russia-to-wards
Poland, and there had also been a discussion on the conduct of an Italian General in the south of
Italy.
Government had not failed to express their opinion in regard to both of these transactions.
He deprecated
any fussy or meddling interference with foreign States.
He entirely disapproved those homilies and lectures that were too often read by our ministers to foreign States, and which were infinitely more agreeable to the compilers than to the receivers.
He also deprecated the conduct of those who ransacked the newspapers for the purpose of putting questions in that
House which were of no possible use, and were received by foreign countries with great dissatisfaction.
He entirely agreed with what was said in the vacation speech of the right honorable member for
Huntingdon, (
General Peel.) that such intermeddling tended to produce a general feeling of dissatisfaction towards this country on the continent, and led foreigners to say, in their hearts at least, with Orlando, ‘"I do desire that we should be better strangers."’
But when a proclamation repugnant to decency, civilization, and humanity; had been-promulgated and put in force against a people endeared to us by every tie of family, language and religion, then he did think we had a right to protest against such an enormity--(hear, hear) --and appeal to the moral sense of the world against an outrage so wicked, so inexcusable, and so useless.
(Hear, hear) Taking the words of the proclamation as he read them, it could signify nothing less than that the ladies of New Orleans, if they showed by work, by gesture, or by movement, contempt for a Northern soldier, were to be subjected to the brutalities of the
Northern armies,
and handed over to the tender mercies of the scum and the powdery of New York. (Hear, hear.) That was the interpretation which the words conveyed, and which they had a right to put on them.
He had heard that very day that there was no punishment in New Orleans against unfortunate women of the town — they were not placed in the lock-up; there was hardly any instance in which that had occurred.
But let them put even the most merciful signification on the words — suppose these ladies were only to be locked up in the calaboose with drunken negroes and all the rascality of soldiery; and for what was this punishment to be inflicted on the ladies of New Orleans?
If by word, movement, or gesture they offended the sensibilities of a Northern soldiers.
(Hear.) Suppose a case of gallantry on the part of such a soldier; if a lady replied to it with that feeling of loathing they felt towards the men, it might be construed into a mark of contempt.
If a lady crossed the street to avoid an encounter with a Northern soldier, or made use of any unguarded expression which showed that, though subdued, the people were still unconquered in their determination for freedom, it might be construed into contempt, and for that the ladies of New Orleans might be locked up with the common women of the town.
(Hear.) He spoke very strongly because he felt very strongly.
Not more than two years and a half ago he was at New Orleans himself, and
he should not readily forges the kindness the the ever ready welcome with which he was received, or the charm, the grace and gentleness of these ladies.--(Hear, hear.) A letter was put into his hand from a Southern young lady a few days ago, in which it was stated.
‘"I am afraid when you see us again you will find us entirely changed — we have been so outraged that you will no longer find us the timid, retiring women we were."’ (‘"Hear,"’ and a laugh,) He thought it too piteous to laugh at. It was sad enough for tears.
He did not appeal to his honorable friend, the Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to reply to this question; but he did ask the
Prime Minister of
England if he was prepared, to do that which he was convinced the ruler
of brave and chivalrous France would do, if he had not already done it--(hear, hear)--namely, to protest against this, the greatest outrage which had been perpetrated against decency in the age in which we lived.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord Palmerston rose amidst loud cheers and said--
Mr. Speaker, appealed to as I have been by my honorable friend.
I am quite prepared to say that I think no man could have read the proclamation to which our attention has been drawn without a feeling of the deepest indignation--(cheers from both sides of the
House)--a proclamation to which I do not scruple to attach the epithet infamous.
(Renewed cheering) Sir, an Englishman must blush to think that such an act has been committed by one belonging to the Anglo-
Saxon race.
(Cheers.) If it had come from some semi-barbarous race that was not within the pale of civilization, one might have regretted it, but might not have been surprised; but that such an order should have been promulgated by a soldier--(cheers)--by one who had raised himself to the rank of General is a subject undoubtedly of not less astonishment than pain.
(Cheers,) Sir, I cannot bring myself to behave but that the
Government of the
United States, whenever they had notice of this order, must of their own accord have stamped it with their censure and condemnation.
(Hear, hear.)
We received yesterday a dispatch from Lord Lyons, communicating from the newspapers the paragraph read by the honorable baronet — namely, the order of
General Beauregard animadverting on,
and giving the text of, the proclamation to which reference has been made.
There will be no objection to produce that paper.
With regard to the course which her Majesty's Government may, upon consideration, take on the subject, the
House, I trust, will allow me to say that will be a matter for reflection.
(Cheers.) I am quite persuaded that there is no man in
England who does not share those feelings which have been so well expressed by the honorable baronet and my honorable friend.
(Loud cheers.)
The motion was then agreed to.
