comparison one is struck with the more careful observance of the forms of law in the older country. Most of the harshness was committed in a regular manner which was rendered easier by the subservience of Parliament to the king and the ministry, the stricter execution of the laws in the Great Britain of 1793-1802 than in the United States of 1861-65, and the greater devotion of the bench to the government. In Scotland this subordination amounted to servility: indeed one judge instructed the jury in a charge that bestowed upon him the nickname of Jeffreys. With us there were no individual cases of so extreme hardship as in Scotland. Four able and educated men were sentenced to fourteen years' transportation to Botany Bay1 because they had advocated parliamentary reform and universal suffrage. It falls not to me to tell a tale of suffering on board the hulks, of the lives of aspiring men crushed by the cruelty of the law, nor have I to mention a monument like the Martyrs' Memorial on Calton Hill in Edinburgh; but, on account of the wholesale violations of personal liberty by our government, it well may be that the mass of suffering in our land was even greater.2

appear to me to be a finishing stroke to everything like a spirit of liberty." In 1800 in a letter to Gray he spoke of the country as being "both corrupted and subdued." - Correspondence, vol. iii. pp. 105, 307.

A fifth, a clergyman, was sentenced for seven years.

2 My authorities for this discussion of affairs in Great Britain are the different statutes suspending the habeas corpus act, beginning with 34 Geo. 3, ch. 54; the Treasonable Attempts act, the Seditious Meetings act; the different debates in the House of Commons and House of Lords on the suspension of the habeas corpus, Parl. Hist., especially Pitt, Fox, and Courtenay, May, 1794, Courtenay and Tierney, Dec. 1798, Sheridan, Lord Eldon, Hobhouse and Canning, Lords King and Holland, Feb. 1800; Journals of the House of Lords and House of Commons; Buckle, Hist. of Civilization, vol. i. p. 348 et seq.; May, Constitutional Hist. of Eng., vol. ii. p. 134 et seq.; Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, vol. i.; Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi.; Fox's Correspondence, vol. iii.; The Story of the English Jacobins, Smith; Adolphus, Hist. of George III., vols. vi. and vii.; Alison, Hist. of Europe, vols. iv., v., vi.; Green, Hist. of Eng., vol. iv.; S. R. Gardiner, article "England," Enc. Brit., vol. viii. p. 361; Life of Cartwright, vol. i.; Bradlaugh, Impeachment of the House of Brunswick; Life of Francis Place, Graham Wallas.

For my purpose I have not deemed it necessary to run the parallel to the

After careful consideration of our own case, I do not hesitate to condemn the arbitrary arrests and the arbitrary interference with the freedom of the press in States which were not the theatre of the war and where the courts were open. I do not omit to take into account that, bad as was Vallandigham's speech in the House, even worse was much of the writing in the Democratic newspapers; that the "Copperhead" talk on the street, in the public conveyances, and in the hotels was still more bitter and vituperative; that the virulence was on the increase, and that constant complaints of "the utterance of treasonable sentiments" were made by patriotic men to the authorities. Nevertheless I am convinced that all of this extrajudicial procedure was inexpedient, unnecessary, and wrong; that the offenders should have been prosecuted according to law, or, if their offences were not indictable, permitted to go free.1 "Abraham Lincoln," writes James Bryce, "wielded more authority than any single Englishman has done since Oliver Cromwell."2 My reading of English history and comparative study of our own have led me to the same conclusion, although it must be added that the power which Cromwell exercised far transcended that which was assumed by Lincoln, who governed with less infraction of the Constitution of his country than did the Protector of the Commonwealth. Moreover, there was in Lincoln's nature so much of kindness and mercy that he mitigated the harshness perpetrated by Seward and by Stanton. The pervasion of his individual influence, his respect for the Constitution and the law which history and tradition ascribe to him, the greatness of his character and work have prevented the generation that has grown up since the civil conflict from appreciating the enormity of

violations of personal liberty in England in a time of peace. For the repressive measures of 1817, and the "Six Acts" of 1819, see Const. Hist. of Eng., May, vol. ii. p. 183 et seq.; Life of Place, Wallas, p. 120.

1 See vol. iii. p. 555; ante, p. 165.

2 American Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 61.

3 It may be interesting to consult Gardiner's History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, vol. ii. chap. xxvi., pp. 244, 247, 253, 278 et seq., 315.

the acts done under his authority by the direction of the Secretaries of State and of War. While I have not lighted upon an instance in which the President himself directed an arrest, he permitted them all; he stands responsible for the casting into prison of citizens of the United States on orders as arbitrary as the lettres-de-cachet of Louis XIV., instead of their apprehension, as in Great Britain in her crisis, on legal warrants.1

The infractions of the Constitution caused concern to many Republicans, and were the subject of earnest debates at this session of the Senate. More notable was the special message to the Pennsylvania legislature of Curtin, one of the great "war governors," attached to Lincoln, and from the first a zealous supporter of the emancipation proclamation. In this message he protested by indirection, though with entire plainness, against the arbitrary acts of the government, and suggested that there was no need of infringing upon the

1 Through the kindness of Thornton K. Lothrop, I have seen the originals of several orders for the arrest of persons and their commitment to Fort Warren or Fort Lafayette which were sent from the State and War Departments at Washington to the United States authorities in Boston. The following are examples: [Telegram] "Wash., Sept. 14, 1861. United States Marshal: Arrest Leonard Sturtevant and send him to Fort Lafayette, N. Y., and deliver him into custody of Col. Martin Burke. Wm. H. Seward"; [Telegram] "War Dept., Wash., Oct. 19, 1861. Richard H. Dana, Jr., U. S. Dist. Atty.: Send Wm. Pierce to Fort Lafayette. F. W. Seward"; [Telegram] "Wash., Sept. 2, 1864. United States Marshal: John M. Watson is in Boston, Number 2 Oliver Place. He will to-day or to-night receive goods from Lawrence, New York, probably nautical instruments, care of Winser & Son, also clothes and letters from St. Denis Hotel, Watch him, look out for the clothes and letters, and seize them and arrest him when it is the right time. When arrested don't let him see or communicate with any one, but bring him immediately to Washington. The letters and goods should be had by all means. E. M. Stanton." Similar orders are printed in Marshall's American Bastile, and in O. R., series ii. vol. ii.

As to Great Britain see 34 Geo. 3, ch. 54, and the statutes continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus act After a careful reading of the debates in Parliament, I believe that the restrictions in these statutes were observed by the government; but see Hobhouse in House of Commons, Feb. 19, and Sheridan, Dec. 11, 1800.

Constitution. Moved by this sentiment among Republicans, by the wholesome criticism of the Democrats, and the verdict. of the ballot-box in the autumn of 1862, Congress passed an act which, although belated one year, is worthy of approbation. It authorized the President "during the present rebellion, . . . whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it," to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof. It directed the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War to furnish to the judges of the United States circuit and district courts lists of political prisoners now or hereafter confined within their jurisdiction, and made it the duty of the judge to discharge, after they had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States government, those prisoners against whom the grand jury in his jurisdiction at its regular session found no indictment. If the lists were not furnished within twenty days from the time of the arrest, and if no indictment were found, relief was provided for any citizen who suffered from the arbitrary action of the authorities. Had this statute been strictly observed, no lasting hardship, nothing but transient injustice, would henceforward have been done.

I have said that Congress gave the President the control of the sword and the purse of the nation. Owing to the discouragement at the defeats in the field, the feeling of weariness at the duration of the war, and the improved state of business, which opened many avenues of lucrative employment, volunteering had practically ceased. To fill the armies some measure of compulsion was necessary, for the efforts at drafting by the States had not proved satisfactory.

The

1 This message of Feb. 12 is printed in the Phila. Inquirer, Feb. 13. The governor ended it thus: "I recommend the passage of a joint resolution earnestly requesting that Congress shall forthwith pass laws defining and punishing offences of the class above referred to, and providing for the fair and speedy trial, by an impartial jury, of persons charged with such offences in the loyal and undisturbed States, so that the guilty may justly suffer and the innocent be relieved." See N. Y. World, Feb. 14.

2 Approved March 3; ante, p. 231.

Conscription Act,1 now passed, operated directly on the people of the nation instead of through the medium of the States, which had previously been the machinery for raising troops. The country was divided into enrolment districts, corresponding in general to the congressional districts of the different States, each of which was in charge of a provost-marshal. At the head of these officers was a provost-marshal-general, whose office at Washington formed a separate bureau of the War Department. All persons subject to military duty 2 were to be enrolled, and provision was made for drafting men for the military service when necessary. Any person drafted could furnish a substitute or pay three hundred dollars to the government as an exemption.

The financial legislation was alike drastic. One year previously the country had started on the road of irredeemable legal-tender paper: there was now no turning back. The maw of our voracious treasury again needed filling. Spaulding, who spoke for the Committee of Ways and Means, said in the House: "Currency has been scarce all the time for the last eight months, and is now very difficult to be obtained in sufficient quantity to meet the business wants of the country. . . . Legal-tender notes are not plenty among the people, who are required to pay your taxes; they are continually asking for more. Why, then, should we be alarmed at a further issue of legal-tender notes? So long as they are wanted by the business of the country, demanded by the soldiers for their pay, begged for by all the needy creditors of the government, surely Congress ought not to hesitate in an exigency like the present. It is no time now to depress business operations, or hold back the pay due to honest creditors of the government. It is much better to stimulate, make

1 Approved March 3.

2 These were "all able-bodied male citizens of the United States" and foreigners intending to become citizens "between the ages of twenty and forty-five years." Sec. 2 of the act, which is chap. lxxv., provided for exemptions. Sec. 3 made a classification favorable to married men.

3 Sce vol. iii. p. 562.