been carried out in real life. It only proves, as a London paper 
states today, that Palmerston “sought to thwart the declared and 
binding policy of the responsible advisers of the Crown”. 

That Lord John Russell’s coup de main struck the Palmerston 
press like a bolt from the blue, one fact proves most forcibly. The 
Times of yesterday suppressed the Russell correspondence and 
made no mention of it whatever. Only today a reprint from the 
London Gazette figures in its columns, introduced and prefaced by 
a leading article that carefully avoids the real issue, the issue between 
the English people and the English Cabinet, and touches on it merely 
in the ill-humoured phrase that “Lord John Russell has exerted all 
his ingenuity to extract an apology out of Seward’s dispatch of 
November 30”.* On the other hand, the wrathful Jupiter Tonans‘ 

Gazette, No. 22589, January 14, 1862.— Ed. 

December 21, 1861, leading article.— Ed. 

January 10, 1862, leading article.— Ed. 
January 16, 1862, leading article.— Ed. 

of Printing House Square” lets off steam in a second leading 
article, in which Mr. Gilpin, a member of the ministry, the 
President of the Board of Trade* and a partisan of the 
Manchester school, is declared to be unworthy of his place in 
the ministry.” For last Tuesday,‘ at a public meeting in Northamp- 
ton, whose parliamentary representative he is, Gilpin, a former 
bookseller, a demagogue and an apostle of moderation, whom 
nobody will take for a hero, criminally urged the English people to 
prevent by public demonstrations an untimely recognition of the 
Southern Confederacy, which he inconsiderately stigmatised as an 
offspring of slavery. As if, The Times indignantly exclaims, as if 
Palmerston and Russell— The Times now remembers the existence 
of Lord John Russell once more—had not fought all their lives to 
put down slavery!“ It was surely an indiscretion, a calculated 
indiscretion on the part of Mr. Gilpin, to call the English people 
into the lists against the pro-slavery longings of a ministry to which 
he himself belongs. But Mr. Gilpin, as already mentioned, is no 
hero. His whole career evidences little capacity for martyrdom. His 
indiscretion occurred on the same day as Lo-d John Russell carried 
out his coup de main. We may therefore conclude that the Cabinet 
is not a “happy family”* and that its individual members 
have already familiarised themselves with the idea of “separa- 
tion”. 

No less noteworthy than the English ministerial sequel to the 
Trent drama is its Russian epilogue. Russia, which during the entire 
racket stood silently in the background with folded arms, now 
springs to the proscenium, claps Mr. Seward on the shoulders— 
and declares that the moment for the definitive regulation of the 
maritime rights of neutrals has at last arrived. Russia, as is known, 
considers herself called on to put the urgent questions of 
civilisation on the agenda of world history at the right time and in 
the right place. Russia becomes unassailable by the maritime 
powers the moment the latter give up, with their belligerent rights 
against neutrals, their power over Russia’s export trade. The Paris 
Convention of April 16, 1856, which is in part a verbatim copy of 

Times, No. 24143, January 15, 1862.— Ed. 

the Russian “Armed” Neutrality Treaty of 1780 against England,’ 
is meanwhile not yet law in England. What a trick of destiny if the 
Anglo-American dispute ended with the British Parliament and the 
British Crown sanctioning a concession that two British ministers 
made to Russia on their own authority at the end of the 
Anglo-Russian war.