The anti-war movement among the English people gains from 
day to day in energy and extent. Public meetings in the most 
diverse parts of the country insist on settlement by arbitration of 
the dispute between England and America. Memoranda in this 
sense rain on the chief of the Cabinet,* and the independent 
provincial press is almost unanimous in its opposition to the war-cry 
of the London press. 

Subjoined is a detailed report of the meeting held last Monday” 
in Brighton, since it emanated from the working class, and the two 
principal speakers, Messrs. Coningham and White, are influential 
members of Parliament who both sit on the ministerial side of the 
House. oe 

Mr. Wood (a worker) proposed the first motion, to the effect 

“that the dispute between England and America arose out of a misinterpreta- 
tion of international law, but not out of an intentional insult to the British flag; that 
accordingly this meeting is of the opinion that the whole question in dispute should 
be referred to a neutral power for decision by arbitration; that under the existing 

circumstances a war with America is not justifiable, but rather merits the 
condemnation of the English people”. 

In support of his motion Mr. Wood, among other things, 
remarked: 

“It is said that this new insult is merely the last link in a chain of insults that 
America has offered to England. Suppose this to be true, what would it prove in 
regard to the cry for war at the present moment? It would prove that so long as 
America was undivided and strong, we submitted quietly to her insults; but now, in 

b December 30, 1861.— Ed. 

the hour of her peril, we take advantage of a position favourable to us, to revenge 
the insult. Would not such a procedure brand us as cowards in the eyes of the 
civilised world?” 

Mr. Coningham: 

‘“..At this moment there is developing in the midst of the Union an avowed 
policy of emancipation (Applause), and I express the earnest hope that no intervention 
on the part of the English government will be permitted (Applause).... Will you, 
freeborn Englishmen, allow yourselves to be embroiled in an anti-republican war? 
For that is the intention of The Times and of the party that stands behind it.... I 
appeal to the workers of England, who have the greatest interest in the 
preservation of peace, to raise their voices and, in case of need, their hands for the 
prevention of so great a crime (Loud applause)... The Times has exerted every 
endeavour to excite the warlike spirit of the land and by bitter scorn and slanders 
to engender a hostile mood among the Americans.... I do not belong to the 
so-called peace party.!54 The Times favoured the policy of Russia and put forth (in 
1853) all its powers to mislead our country into looking on calmly at the military 
encroachments of Russian barbarism in the East. I was amongst those who raised 
their voices against this false policy. At the time of the introduction of the 
Conspiracy Bill, whose object was to facilitate the extradition of political refugees, 
no expenditure of effort seemed too great to The Times, to force this Bill through 
the Lower House. I was one of the 99 members of the House who withstood this 
encroachment on the liberties of the English people and brought about the 
minister’s downfall !55 (applause). This minister is now at the head of the Cabinet. I 
prophesy to him that should he seek to embroil our country in a war with America 
without good and sufficient reasons, his plan will fail ignominiously. I promise him 
a fresh ignominious defeat, 2 worse defeat than was his lot on the occasion of the 
Conspiracy Bill (Loud upplause).... I do not know the official communication that 
has gone to Washington; but the opinion prevails that the Crown lawyers? have 
recommended the government to take its stand on the quite narrow legal ground 
that the Southern commissioners might not be seized without the ship that carried 
them. Consequently the handing over of Slidell and Mason is to be demanded as 
the conditio sine qua non. 

“Suppose the people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean does not permit its 
government to hand them over. Will you go to war for the bodies of these two 
envoys of the slavedrivers?... There exists in this country an anti-republican war 
party. Remember the last Russian war. From the secret dispatches published in 
Petersburg it was clear beyond all doubt that the articles published by The Times in 
1855 were written by a person who had access to the secret Russian state papers 
and documents. At that time Mr. Layard read the striking passages in the Lower 
House,> and The Times, in its consternation, immediately changed its tone and blew 
the war-trumpet next morning‘... The Times has repeatedly attacked the Emperor 
Napoleon and supported our government in its demand for unlimited credits for 
land fortifications and floating batteries. Having done this and raised the alarm cry 
against France, does The Times now wish to leave our coast exposed to the French 
emperor by embroiling our country in a trans-Atlantic war...? It is to be feared that 

b A. H. Layard [Speech in the House of Commons on March 31, 1854], 

© “To whatever quarter...”, The Times, No. 21704, April 1, 1854, leading 

the present great preparations are intended by no means only for the Trent case 
but for the eventuality of a recognition of the government of the slave states. If 
England does this, then she will cover herself with everlasting shame.” 

Mr. White: 

“It is due to the working class to mention that they are the originators of this 
meeting and that all the expenses of organising it are borne by their committee.... 
The present government never had the good judgment to deal honestly and 
frankly with the people.... I have never for a moment believed that there was the 
remotest possibility of a war developing out of the Trent case. I have said to the 
face of more than one member of the government that not a single member of the 
government believed in the possibility of a war on account of the Trent case. Why, 
then, these massive preparations? 1 believe that England and France have reached 
an understanding to recognise the independence of the Southern states next 
spring. By then Great Britain would have a fleet of superior strength in American 
waters. Canada would be completely equipped for defence. If the Northern states 
are then inclined to make a casus belli out of the recognition of the Southern states, 
Great Britain will then be prepared....” 

The speaker then went on to develop the dangers of a war with 
the United States, called to mind the sympathy that America 
showed on the death of General Havelock, the assistance that the 
American sailors rendered to the English ships in the unlucky 
Peiho engagement,” etc. He closed with the remark that the Civil 
War would end with the abolition of slavery and England must 
therefore stand unconditionally on the side of the North. 

The original motion having been unanimously adopted, a 
memorandum for Palmerston was submitted to the meeting, 
debated and adopted.