« 이전계속 »
not venture to say what may be the future course of events. I confine myself to that which I think is our duty and which is right, and if we do that which is right and do our duty we must be content, and leave future days to prepare and cope for any dangers that may arise, and it will not enfeeble our arms, the reflection that we never failed in our obligations to the United States—States which have been in peace and amity with us, and it will not be our fault that the great afflictions of this war have been prolonged. I know not that there is anything in my noble friend's immediate purpose to-night which will make it necessary for me to go much further into this question; but at the same time there are parts of my noble friend's speech which are suggestive of what has taken place in former questions and former instances of interference, and which seem as if my noble friend and those who look to the motion which he has made, expect there will be some interference on our part in this war.
Now, my lords, I wish to say a few words on the subject of intervention in former days. We interferred in the case of Holland, to save her from the tyranny-the religious tyranny-and political despotism of Philip the Second. In that contest we contributed to the establishment of her independence. My noble friend has referred to the case of Portugal. But Charles I., Cromwell, and Charles II., all agreed with the propriety of that interference, and we declared ourselves ready to send 10,000 men to aid the new government, and to help Portugal to relieve herself from Spanish tyranny and domination, and to establish the independence of that kingdom. In more recent times we interfered in Greece, where there was carried on a bloody contest. Our interference led to the establishment of her independence, for we aided in her being rescued from that destruction which seemed to impend over her, and helped to free that country from despotism. In the case of Belgium again, when the people of that country declared they were unable to remain under the government of the King of the Netherlands, as the treaty of Vienna directed, we interfered by force, and a happy arrangement was made, which has continued up to the present time.
Now, my lords, in all those instances, whether the wars were carried on by our ancestors or in our own times, there is nothing of which an Englishman need be ashamed, for if we have taken part in interventions, it has been on behalf of the independence, the freedom, and the welfare of great portions of mankind. I should be sorry if there were any intervention in our time which would bear another character. I hope that will not be the case, and that no interests of our own, deeply as they may affect the industry and well-being of a large portion of our fellow-countrymen, will induce us to set an example far different from that which was set us by our ancestors. But whenever we shall be called upon to interfere-may it be seldom-I trust it will be in the cause of liberty, and to promote the freedom of mankind, as we have hitherto done. With regard to this war in America, I trust we shall be permitted to follow an impartial and neutral course. Depend upon it, it will be far better that the war should cease by the conviction, both in the Northern and Southern States, that they never again can happily form one community and one republic, than that a termination of hostilities should be brought about either by the advice or mediation, or interference of any European powers.
At an emancipation meeting recently held at Woolwich, observed the Commodore, he found the following concluding resolution carried with applause:
"That this meeting expresses its concurrence in the principles of non-intervention by the British Government in this contest; but consider that more vigilance should be exercised in enforcing the neutrality laws, especially as regards the building of war ships for the Confederates."
Notwithstanding the interested support which the Confederates bad received, he believed this to be the real feeling of the country.
[The following is the speech of Mr. John Cropper, (alluded to in our last number,) at the Liverpool meeting on American slavery, for which we could not find room.)
The Chairman stated why he bad consented to preside. He said:I do not come as the justifier of the American war, or of any of the evils connected with it; I freely admit the errors and inconsistencies of the Federal government; but I do come as the hearty sympathiser with that party in the Northern States—I hope a large, and I feel sure an increasing party—whose hearts are true and right in the cause of humanity and freedom, both to the white and to the black, and who are beginning to feel that slavery in the South and complicity with slavery in the North have been the real cause of the war which is now desolating their country, and demoralising their population. I come also with a hearty and thorough detestation of that party in the South-and I know of no other party there—who are glorying in building up a Confederacy the basis and corner-stone of which is “the right for man to hold property in man.” He proved luy quotations from the speeches of Vice-President Stephens, Mr. Crittenden, and Mr. Jefferson Davis, that the nationality asserted by the South had this character, and declared himself unable to understand the feelings of those Englishmen and Christians who sympathise with it, or who expect that slavery will ever voluntarily be terminated by its measures.
We are taunted on every hand, said the chairman, with the insignificance and want of respectability and standing of those who are now pleading the cause of negro freedom. This is no new cry. The abolition of the slave trade and the extinction of slavery in our colonies are now vaunted by orators and statesmen as the glory of Britain, as contrasted with other nations, and especially with the American States. But I am older than most in this meeting, and perhaps remember better than some of you how the first advocates of the freedom of the negro in our colonies were a small and, in the eyes of most, a despised and very insignificant body. With a few, a very
few, honourable exceptions, they numbered none of the wealthy or the influential-none of the higher classes of the community, either social or mercantile. Among these few exceptions in Liverpool I may mention the names of Isaac and Adam Hodgson. The former left Liverpool many years ago; the latter continued amongst us, the supporter of social, moral and religious interests, till increasing years and infirmities laid him aside, and it is but very recently that he entered into his rest, full of years and of honour. There is one other name I would mention as amongst the very first promoters of this good cause-the accomplished and benevolent William Roscoe.
But if those who forty years ago advocated the cause of freedom met with calumny and opposition, those who at the close of the last century exposed the enormities of the slave trade had their moral courage much much more severely tested. It would take up too much of your time to enter into the difficulties of that long struggle; but I am tempted to allude to a meeting held in Liverpool nearly seventy years ago. That meeting was not without the sanction of great names-it numbered the most wealthy and the most influential merchants of the town. Its object was to pass resolutions deprecating in the strongest terms all interference with this gainful commerce. Those resolutions would have been passed without a dissentient voice had it not been for the strong sense of humanity and right in one man. He felt that it would be a disgrace to his native town that such resolutions should go forth as the unanimous sentiment of Liverpool. He was a member of the Society of Friends, engaged in business, and perhaps known to few beyond his immediate circle; but he was an honest and a brave man. He did not calculate how much his business might suffer by incurring the displeasure of those merchant princes, who were amassing wealth from this traffic in the blood and groans of their fellow-men; but he did remember that those poor wretched victims of avarice had flesh and blood and feelings like his own, and when the resolution was put by the mayor he manfully raised his solitary arm against it. This man was the late Isaac Hadwen. Often have I made my father relate this passage in his life with feelings of emotion and admiration. But I am asked—What has President Lincoln done to entitle him to our approval? I answer, more than any previous President has ever dared to do, and I honour him for it. 1. His government has enforced the laws against slave trading. 2. It has entered into slave trade treaties with Great Britain, conceding the right of search. 3. It has prohibited slavery for ever in the territories. 4. It has abolished slavery in the district of Columbia. 5. It has entered into diplomatic relations with the negro republics of Hayti and Liberia. 6. It has offered terms of compensated abolition of slavery to the loyal States. 7, and last, It has proclaimed liberty to the slaves in the States in rebellion.
If in his attachment to the Union Mr. Lincoln has occasionally seemed to sacrifice to it the cause of humanity and freedom, we must never lose sight of these substantial acts of his legislation, which show that he is at heart true to the negro emancipation. These are
some of the reasons which have induced me to unite with those who propose to present President Lincoln with an address expressive of sympathy in the emancipation measures of his government. Of the wisdom or policy of his last act I venture no opinion. I own I fear more from the exasperation of the masters than from the violence of the slaves. May God in his mercy avert the evils which are predicted from both these sources. The whole subject is to me full of deep solemnity and signification. Long years of injustice and oppression to the negro, of rights with held and feelings outraged, have already been succeeded by a period of fearful national suffering. Commerce has been suspended-torrents of human blood have been shed—thousands of homes have been desolated-thousands of hearts agonised We would not, we dare not, speculate as to the reasons which move a just and righteous God in what He appoints or in what He permits; but surely these events should teach most impressively, both to nations and to individuals, those lessons from God's own word, “ to do justly,” “ to love mercy,” and “to despise the gain of oppression."
DR. WALLICH AND PROFESSOR King's Question concluded.
Kensington, March 16th, 1863. Sir,--Had Professor King, whilst attempting to meet my statement, confined himself to an accurate narration of facts, it would have been quite needless for me to add to what I have already written on the subject of his plagiarisms. The subjoined brief remarks will, however, show he has not so confined himself; and under these circumstances alone do I venture again to trespass on your valuable space.
Professor King asserts-Firstly (Nautical Magazine, March, p. 134), that I have assumed the position of the sunken land of Buss "at 748 fathoms;” secondly, that, in speaking of carbonate of lime in sea water, I assume the presence “ of a salt of which no one has ever detected a trace" (N. M., p. 134); thirdly, “ that it cannot be said that I latterly maintain otherwise than that there is a considerable degree of probability attached to the opinion that the Foraminifera live and multiply at the depths from which the sounding-machine occasionally brings them" (N. M., p. 134).
To these three assertions I reply seriatim—that no such assumption is made by me regarding the sunk land of Buss, as may be seen on reference to my North-Atlantic Sea-bed, pp. 65 and 66,—that carbonate of lime is specially given as a constituent of sea water in the latest editions of the following standard works on physical geography and geology-namely, Herschel, p. 221-Maury, p. 16—M's. Somerville, p. 221—and Jukes' Manual, p. 125. Whilst in the very page of my work from which Professor King adduces a garbled extract, I distinctly state my “full convictions” as to the vitality of the organisms alluded to, in the localities and at the depths in question ?
Leaving Professor King to reconcile, as best he can, liis mention of my name amongst the authorities on deep-sea soundings, in his Preliminary Notice of November last, and his declaration (Nautical Magazine, March, pp. 135 and 136) that he was not “aware that I had written or published anything on the subject before be read my charges,” I have to direct attention also to his ex post facto “ denial” of any pretension to originality (N. M., March, p. 132) when placed side by side with the intimation corrected in the first paragraph of bis Preliminary Notice in the November number, p. 600), namely, that he then “purposed giving a summary of the results of his investigations as far as they had been conducted”-and the avowal contained in the last number (p. 136) of his “having avoided, as much as possible, consulting any work on the subject, until after he had published his Preliminary Notice, wishing to form independent conclusions from data in his own hands !”* Truly, the view bere taken by Professor King of the proper mode of drawing up "a detailed report on the various objects which the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have done him the honour to place in bis hands for examination," is eminently original, to say the least of it; and in perfect keeping with his definition of “good taste” which immediately follows.
In conclusion it only remains for me to add tbat, since Professor King would have it appear that my charge against him is altogether “gratuitous,” the reader will find abundant data for arriving at a correct estimate regarding its probable validity or otherwise, on reference to certain papers on “The Permian System” and “The Structure of the Shell in Rhynconella Geinitzi,” which were published in the seventeenth and nineteenth volumes of the second series of the Annals and Magazine of Natural History.
I remain, &c.,
G. C. WALLICH. To the Editor of the Nautical Magazine.
* Professor King informs us that he sent a “ Preliminary Notice" of his investigations to the last October Meeting of the British Association at Canbridge; but he omits to state that the said Notice met with anything but a complimentary reception at the hands of the President of the section before which it was read ; inasmuch as the British Association professes only to recognise the results of original observation.