Year: 1869




ing at Us.


From the Correspondence N. Y. Herald, H.
LONDON. May 3. 1869.


The excitement over the new ane


startling phase Of the Alabama question
presented by Senator Summers speech
increases every day, and as the London


journals seem the more disposed to last


themselves into fury the more convinced


they become of their inability to weaken


by fair argument the unanswerable case
made out on behalf of the American


Government and indorsed by the all bu,


unanimous vote of the United States


Senate. Some of them reiterate again


and again the declaration that the gates


are shut and barred against any further


consideration of the claims Of America


since the rejection of the Johnson-Stanley


treaty, and avow that no ministry could


exist an hour that would prefer one inch


further concession on England's part to


actual war. Others, again, adopt the


whistling policy found so comforting


to the boy who was compelled


to cross a graveyard after dark, and


keep harping on the hopeful string


that Senator Summers speech does


not at all represent the views


of the administration that Motley's in


structions will be of s. totally different


character to those shadowed forth in that


exposition of the popular view Of the


question, and that diplomatic demands


Will be found to be quite q different


affair from political defamation. 1t is


easy to conceive that the organs of the


fossilized Tory party have all to gain


and nothing to lose by exciting popular


prejudice against the American side OF


this momentous controversy, since, in
addition to the necessity of defending
their position as sympathisers with the
Southern rebellion, they desire to en-
barrass the present administration, and
to make any yielding on their part as
Objectionable as possible in the eyes OF
Englishmen. But it is not 80 easy to
understand why the ministerial orgaps
deem it polite at this time to take SO
decided stand against the just demands
of the American Government, since it is
inevitable that the question must be met
by the present Cabinet fairly and
squarely, and the reckoning between the
two nations be, one way or another, de-
fnitely settled.


1t is significant of the weakness of
England's position that she makes it
principal cause of complaint against the
Americans that they do not include
France in their bill of indictment against
Great Britain. Well, suppose they do
not, does that in any degree mitigate the
wrong done by England? France
recognized Southern belligerency as well
as we did," is the whining cry Of the
whole LondOn press; why do you COM
plain of us and say nothing about her p
They even repeat the statement that
France desired to recognize the inde-
pendence of the Southern Confederacy,
and to that end solicited in vain the CO.
operation of the British Government. If
this should be we'll proven historical
fact it would only show that France de-
sired to commit England openly to the
cause she was secretly and treacherously
aiding, and at all times an avowed enemy |
is more honorable and less dangerous |
than one who wears the mask of friend |
ship to conceal his true features. The |
attempt to drag France into the contro-
versy will scarcely help England in her
real object, which is to win the Emperor
Napoleon as an ally in case of war with |
the United States. 1t is an ungrscious |
mode of gaining comrsde to drag him
by the neck into the midst Of melee,
and Napoleon is not the sort of person
to be pleased with such treatment. But
under any circumstances the French EN-
peror is in no condition to draw his
sword in an unjust cause. The union of
France and England against America to
Justify acts of treachery and injustice
aimed at the life of the Republic ia the
hour of her peril would be the signal for
3 convulsion in EurSps that would shake
the foundation of the French empire.
No sensible man believes that Russia
aud Prussia will remain idle in the event
Of so unholy an alliance.


The arguments Of the English press in
reply to Senator Sumner do not improve
with time. The London Times this
morning produces its third direct criti-
rism of the speech, and makes two points
against its positions that the premature
concession of ocean belligerency to
he rebel States opened the gates Of war,
and let loose the pirate Alabama upon the
american marine, and that England, by
he sympathy and aid she extended to the
South, incurred the reproach of aiding
q the wicked cause" Of slavery in Its last
1attle with civilization. The concession
1f ocean belligerency, argues the Times,
,snnoi Il held to have let loose the Ala
,sma upou the marine of the United
states "for the best Of all reasons, that
he Alabama did not escape until April,
$50" while the Queens proclamation
,oncediug Southern belligsrency was is
lued In Nay, 1861. 1t was scarcely to
,e expected that the English Queens
PROCLAMATION and the sending oct OF pm
Tate vessels from English ports would
,ave been simultaneous events; but there
$ evidence in existence 10 show that ,he
irst steps toward construction oil Ala
,amss we're taken Immediately the recog'
,ition Of belligerency beesEas . aged fact,
md that those Who were engaged IN toe
we're hanging about the doors
II the department for days before the
made is appearance, snx-
ously awaiting the frpiicp cfthsir hOpss !