John Bright to John M. Forbes, July 31, 1863

Rochdale, July 31,1863.

My Dear Me. Forbes, — I am glad to hear of your safe arrival, and I rejoice that on your arrival so much good news should await you. I have a note from Mr. Aspinwall this morning of a very satisfactory character; and I only now begin to fear that your cause may go on too fast, for I am not sure that the North is yet resolute and unanimous enough to be able to deal wisely with the great slavery question. To me it seems needful to declare the Proclamation an unalterable decree, and to restore no State to its ancient position in the nation until its constitution and laws are made to harmonize with the spirit of it. Till this is done, you will be legally entitled to hold and govern every slaveholding State by that military power which has restored it to the control of the central government.

The “recognition” motion in our House of Commons was a ludicrous failure, as you will have seen. I had the opportunity of preaching some sound doctrine to some unwilling ears. Now the press and the friends of “Secesh” are in great confusion, and their sayings and doings are matter of amusement to me and to many others.

. . . And now for your kind words to me, and your hope that I may come to the States. Many thanks for them and for your invitation. I fear I am getting too far on in life to cross the ocean, unless I saw some prospect of being useful, and had some duty clearly before me. It is a subject of constant regret that I have not paid a visit to the States years ago. Mr. Walker and many others alarm me by telling me I should have a reception that would astonish me.

What they promise me would be a great affliction, for I am not ambitious of demonstrations on my behalf. We will hope affairs in the States will be more settled, and passions in some degree calmed down, before I come, if I ever come; and then I might spend three months pleasantly, and perhaps usefully, in seeing your country and its people.

I have had great pleasure in making your acquaintance in London, and only regret that, having no house in town, I was not able to offer you the hospitality I wished to have offered to you and to others of your countrymen.

With all good wishes for you and for your country and government,

I am with much respect, yours sincerely,

John Bright.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 52-4

John M. Forbes, after July 12, 1863

We landed in New York on Sunday evening [July 12], the day before the great draft riots there broke out. When the pilot came on board, the news of our military success at Gettysburg was coming in, though we could not know at what cost of life among our friends. There was just time for Aspinwall to reach a train that would take him to his home on the North River, and so he left me with our servant John to take care of the rather numerous trunks.

It was after sundown that the little steamer landed John and myself on the wharf, far down the East River, among as bad-looking a lot of roughs as I ever saw assembled. We did not know that the great riot was about breaking out, nor luckily did the gentry around us know what a prize lay within their grasp; but it was easy to see that the dangerous classes were out: the police were hardly to be seen, outside of the custom-house officers, and these, knowing something of us, readily passed our baggage without examination; and I found myself on the wharf in the increasing darkness with my pile of trunks, which included three containing six millions of 5-20 bonds (worth to-day [1884] about eight millions in gold). With some difficulty I fought off, without an absolute quarrel, the horde of persistent hackmen who claimed me as their legitimate prey; and I was standing at bay, wondering what to do next, when I was saluted by the mellifluous Hibernian accent of a rough-looking customer. “Here, Mr. Forbes, take my carriage!” I looked at him without much to increase my confidence in his wretched trap, but asked how he knew me. “And was I not in the regiment at Port Royal when you was there?” “Take these three trunks, my good fellow,” said I, pointing to the treasure-bearers; “and, John, you must get a cart and bring the rest to the Brevoort.” We rattled safely over the rough, dark streets, and I was soon glad to deposit my charge among the heaps in the old Brevoort House entry, and then to find my wife and Alice awaiting me.

I found also that Governor Andrew was in town, and the intercourse with the North was already cut off by the mob. We heard that night the most exciting stories, from callers, of what was going on, and especially from Collector Barney of the New York Custom-house, whose house was threatened. The draft was made a pretext for the mobbing of negroes, as it was reported that the object of the draft was to free their race; and so the Irish were called upon to kill all Africans. It was said that about fifteen hundred persons were killed during the skirmishes of those two days.

For safety we dispatched Alice early Monday morning to Staten Island to our cousin, Frank Shaw,¹ where, as he was a well-known abolitionist, she found herself out of the frying-pan into the fire; but good George Ward took her and all the Shaws into his house, and no harm came to them.

Captain Anthony and his family were at the Fifth Avenue Hotel on their way to Europe, and he saw a great deal more of actual violence than we did. The house was threatened, and many of the guests and servants deserted it, but the captain stuck to his guns and helped to allay the panic.

We discussed with Governor Andrew the expediency of bringing Colonel N. P. Hallowell's 55th Regiment of Colored Troops, just leaving Boston on its way South, into New York, but decided that the experiment was too dangerous a one. The different method pursued in managing the riot at this time in Boston would be a good lesson for the future. Governor Andrew put into all the armories, and places like the Spencer Rifle Company's factory, where arms were made, a sufficient force to protect them, and only one was attacked by the mob. This was at the North End, and was garrisoned by a company of artillerymen under Colonel Stephen Cabot, brought up from the fort. He loaded his guns, and made arrangements by cutting slits in the windows to defend them, and then tried to persuade the mob to disperse. Brickbats drove him back into the armory, and they then began to batter down the doors. He waited till there was some danger of their giving way, and then fired through the doors with his cannon into the mob, as well as through the windows with musketry. It is said there were thirty men killed. However that may be, his prompt action put an end to all further disturbances, and this was the only real outbreak in Massachusetts. These riots were no doubt instigated by Southern conspirators for the purpose of rousing up the Irish element in opposition to the draft which was going on; and their attacks upon negroes were wholly in consequence of their well-known jealousy against negro labor. With the great foreign population of Boston once roused, the consequences might have been quite as bad as they were in New York.

_______________

¹ Francis George Shaw, the father of Col. Robert G. Shaw. —Ed.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 48-51

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Salmon P. Chase, June 27, 1863

London, June 27,1863.

. . . You will have seen in the papers a report of the Alexandra trial, but as a matter of record we have advised the consul, Mr. Dudley, to have it reprinted in pamphlet form, and sent to every member of the House of Commons, and to other influential parties. The ruling of the judge caused universal surprise, and we consider the chance good for a reversal of the decision next fall, when the full court meet; until which time we understand the government intend to hold the Alexandra. We are also advised that the consul can make out so strong a case against the Liverpool ironclads that he counts with great confidence upon getting them stopped until the full court meet; we shall hope to bring you more exact information as to the time of this meeting.¹

We shall also have a full consultation with our minister and Mr. Evarts as to the best time to strike at the ironclads, and we hope to report to you in person very soon after you receive this letter, as it is our purpose to leave in the Great Eastern on Tuesday, the 30th, and we ought to reach New York on Friday or Saturday, 10th or 11th of July. Meantime we beg to say that the law officers of the Crown seem entirely taken by surprise at the decision of the Chief Baron, and that it is received by the bar and the public as an evidence that, if such be the proper construction of the law, it will be absolutely necessary to the peace of nations to have a better law made. . . . We still do not think, in the fluctuating state of public opinion (upon which, to a certain extent, hangs the action of the British government), that it is safe to trust to the British law alone for security from the ironclads. If things look worse, in regard to the law, when we strike at the ironclads, we think the Navy Department ought to be prepared to put a sufficient force near each to stop her before she can get her armament or her full complement of men. This would be a very irritating and dangerous experiment upon our friendly relations with England, but it may become necessary. We understand from the minister that, except for repairs in case of accident, or for shelter in stress of weather, our national ships are not admitted to the hospitalities of British ports; but our continental friends are not so uncharitable, and we can have vessels at various ports in the reach of telegraph. . . .

_______________

¹ This case, The Attorney-General B. Sillem and others, is found fully reported in parliamentary documents of 1863 and 1864 ; and also, on appeal, in 2 Hurlstone & Coltmau's Reports, 431, and 10 House of Lords Cases, 704. It was an information for an alleged violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and was tried 22-25 June, 1863. Chief Baron Pollock charged the jury that it was lawful to send armed vessels to foreign ports for sale, and that the question was whether the Alexandra was merely in the course of building to carry out such a contract. The act did not forbid building ships for a belligerent power, or selling it munitions of war. And so a belligerent could employ a person here to build for them a ship, easily convertible into a man-of-war. He defined the word “equip” as meaning “furnishing with arms,” and left to the jury the question, Was there an intention to equip or fit out a vessel at Liverpool with the intention that she should take part in any contest: that was unlawful. Or was the object really to build a ship on an order, leaving it to the buyers to use it as they saw fit: that would not be unlawful. The jury found for the defendants. On a rule for a new trial, the court was equally divided; whereupon the junior judge withdrew his own judgment in favor of a new trial, and it was refused. Thereupon the Crown appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds for lack of jurisdiction, first by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and finally, on April 6,1864, by the House of Lords. The Alexandra was not one of the rams, but only a gunboat. She seems to have been used for a test case. — Ed.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 46-8

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Salmon P. Chase, May 29, 1863

Paris, May 29,1865.

. . . We have been made aware, by the debates in Parliament and otherwise, that there is no public prosecutor in England, even for the most dangerous crimes against society, and consequently no officer whose business it is, upon reasonable suspicion, to protect us against the infraction of their foreign enlistment act. . . .

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 45

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Salmon P. Chase, April 25, 1863

London, 25 April, 1863.

. . . We have now to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 30 March, handed to us by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, and to say that this gentleman has also repeated to us the verbal explanations which you made to him before his departure. We have carefully considered both, and we find that the main object of his visit to Europe is to acquaint European capitalists with the actual circumstances and resources of our country.¹ We think it will render great service in helping to stem the current of ignorance and misapprehension so generally prevalent in Europe, and in compliance with your suggestions we shall confer freely with him on all occasions, when we think he can, by his advice or his knowledge of facts, or by his political position, aid us in carrying out the objects of our mission; but we do not consider ourselves called on, either by your letters or by our own judgment of what is expedient, to show him our instructions, although he has exhibited to us his own; nor do we feel justified, under our understanding with Messrs. Baring Bros. & Co., to mention to him, or any one else here, the particulars of our temporary loan.

. . . We have not been negligent on the last suggestion of your letter, and are prepared to resort to it whenever other means fail; but the institution of criminal prosecution against Laird and other builders by us, or any American or official party, would be liable to raise up such an excitement as would frustrate the object in view. The English government must be moved to take these proceedings, or, failing to do this effectually, we can count on a local English association for action; and either of these must command a support we could not rely on, and both must be exhausted before we take the last chance. . . .

_______________

¹ Mr. Walker had been Secretary of the Treasury under President Polk, 1845 to 1849. —  Ed.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 43-4

Salmon P. Chase to John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall, March 30, 1863

Treasury Department,         

Washington, D. C., March 30, 1863.

. . . This letter will be delivered to you by Mr. Walker, who will also submit to your perusal the letter of instructions under which he will himself act.

He is not informed as to the particulars of any commission with which you are charged, other than that of negotiating a loan of five millions, but you will doubtless find it convenient and useful to confer with him freely as to all the objects you have in view. . . .

I trust your well-known sagacity and practical experience will contribute much to the success of the efforts of our diplomatic and consular functionaries to arrest these practices so dangerous to peace between the two nations. . . .

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 42

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Salmon P. Chase, April 18, 1863

London, April 18,1863.

SIR, — We beg leave to inform you that we have obtained a loan of £500,000, for the period of six months, from Messrs. Baring Brothers & Co., on the deposit of $4,000,000 of the 5-20 bonds handed us, and with the understanding that, in case of the issuing of letters of marque to cruise against British vessels, they shall have a right to claim a prompt reimbursement of their advance, by sale or otherwise, as you may elect. The existing agitation of the public mind, both in and out of Parliament, rendered this condition a sine quâ non, and we may safely express our doubt if any other house would have undertaken to make the loan; certainly none on terms so liberal. . . .

We wait impatiently the promised official statement of funded and floating debt, amount of currency notes, etc., and also of revenue from imports and from internal sources; they are much needed to remove the almost incredible misapprehensions which have been produced by false or undefined newspaper articles. . . .

Your obedient servants,

W. H. Aspinwall,

J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 41-2

John M. Forbes & William H. Aspinwall to Gideon Welles, April 18, 1863

London, April 18,1863.

SIR, — . . . By availing of the consuls' service we avoid drawing upon ourselves the observation which would perhaps defeat our object, and we also avail of the arrangements and experiments which both these gentlemen have made. Mr. Dudley, having a vice-consul, will be able to leave his post, in case of need, upon this business; and we have assured him that you will not only make any explanations regarding such absence which may hereafter be required by the Secretary of State, but will also fully appreciate his zeal. . . .

To offer to buy the ironclads without success, would only be to stimulate the builders to greater activity, and even to building new ones in the expectation of finding a market for them from one party or the other. . . . We call your attention to the inclosed article by Professor Goldwin Smith. . . . We understand that Professor Smith is a high authority, and we presume he is writing entirely of “his own motion,” and in the interests of his own country. Could we find a sound legal writer to lay open to the people of England the consequences to their own commerce hereafter, and also, though a more delicate point, the danger to it now, through a war with us, and to do it entirely from an English point of view, we think the value of the ironclads, the Southerner, and other dangerous vessels, would decline rapidly. We shall carefully consider this and other points before acting. . . .

Respectfully yours,

W. H. Aspinwall,

J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 40-1

John M. Forbes to William Henry Aspinwall, January 21, 1862

Boston, January 21, 1862.

My Dear Mr. Aspinwall, — Some of our infernally weak-backed bank men as soon as they had got back here went to overturning all the work they had done (under Gray's inspiration) in Washington, telegraphing in favor of the hundred millions legal tender. Many of the House committee were in favor of it before, Chase only half fixed in its favor, the horde of contractors, speculators, and debtors, headed by your Satanic “Herald,” pressed for it. It is my conviction that the Senate committee is the chief safeguard against its being passed, and they cannot stand alone. You must back them up by private letters and public opinion! Here our bankers are troubled by the demand notes, and, not content with having them made practically good by their restriction, want them made a legal tender under the delusion that this will make them better! Once abandon the sound principle, and the pressure will soon sink the restriction.

Cannot you rally the “Evening Post” and some other sound papers and get them to stand by their guns? I still wish you and Mr. Minturn and Green felt like going to Washington. It looks as if all our labor is likely to be thrown away unless some more is put in.

Truly yours in haste,

J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p. 286-7