HORACE BINNEY AND THE UNION LEAGUE. | party satisfaction with party measures of Gov man. PHILADELPHIA, June 25, 1863. ernment. The doctrines of Washington were not To the General Committee of Invitation and party doctrines. Washington belonged to no Correspondence of the Union League of party, wrote for no party, and acted for no Philadelphia, James Milliken, Esq., Chair-party. He feared the evils of party more than all other evils which could assail the Union. He has described, and almost deGENTLEMEN: I acknowledge the honor of nounced, the designs of a party disloyal to your invitation to participate, as a guest, in the Union, and which he thought was in the ceremony and banquet of a national cele-sight in his own day. This was the parent bration of our national independence, in this thought of his Farewell Address. He discity, on the Fourth of July next, and although countenanced parties altogether, and at all my health and strength do not permit me to times, as intrinsically dangerous to the Union avail myself of the invitation, they do not and to republican government. confine me, at present, to this formal reply. Let us be thankful that God spared the I have unbounded confidence in the princi- eyes of this pure and incorruptible patriot ples of the Union League of Philadelphia, from beholding, and perhaps his spirit from and of the loyal National Leagues throughout conceiving, the terrible depth to which this the United States. They are distinctly rec-nation would fall when an immense and rulommended and enforced in the Farewell Ad- ing mass of its people would regard party dress of Washington, and are the breath of as a political virtue, and the passionate exlife to the Union. It has never been so nec- aggerations of party as the only efficient inessary to embody them for universal action strument of government. He was especially as at this day, and to recall them partly in blessed in escaping the sight of flagrant and the letter, and wholly in the spirit, of that wide-spreading rebellion, raised up by and immortal paper. through the spirit of party, to blast the best The maintenance of the Union against all fruits of the great labor of his life, to destroy enemies, without or within; a cordial, habit- the Union, to falsify the Declaration of Indeual, and immovable attachment to it; a sa-pendence, and to lay foundations in governcred regard for the Constitution, as the voice of the Union for its government; confidence in, and support of the Government ordained by the Constitution; obedience to the lawfully-elected and appointed Administration of the Government, respect to its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures; and, withal, that concert of the heart with the demands of political and civil duty which obtains the name of loyalty, and in times like the present manifests the cordiality of allegiance to the nation; these, I think, are in part the very letter, and in the whole the spirit, of Washington's Farewell Address. Washington makes no distinction between the lawfully elected and appointed administration of government and the Gov- As a league of patriots, rejecting all disernment itself. He speaks of both in the criminations of party, and building up the same paragraph as the Government. By the strongest and purest combination of the peomeasures of government he means the meas-ple in irrepressible support of the Union and ures of administration. The Administration is the Government in action. When the people constitutionally change the actors in administration the Government is not changed, and the action of the Government is entitled to the same regard, respect, and support. If there be any practical distinction between the government and the administration, party has made it, and not Washington; and it is a distinction disloyal to the Union, the Constitution, and the Government. It reduces loyalty to the degraded rank of personal favor to personal actors in the Government, and to ment which all our fathers abhorred. That sight has been reserved for us perhaps for our unfilial disregard of his advice, which seems to have been an inspiration from Heaven. We have seen, and we now see, this awful treason, after deluging the country with blood, marching to invade this State, and obtaining, or seeking to obtain, from the same exaggerations of party, either open or secret assistance within the State and city in which the Declaration of Independence was first ushered to the world, and where the formation of the Union was first celebrated by an anniversary procession, and ceremonies of homage, in the same way in which you now purpose again to celebrate it. the Government of the nation, upon the principles of the Father of his Country, I venerate the Union Leagues of the United States, and I devoutly pray God to consummate their noble design, to the effectual suppression of rebellion and treason, and of treasonable practices and confederacies, to the perpetuity of the Union, the maintenance of the Constitution, and the restoration of peace and unity to our entire nation of people and States. I remain, gentlemen, most respectfully your obedient servant, HORACE BINNEY. The readers of the Living Age will find an | which are recorded in the following pages, interest in Mr. Binney's appearance on this same subject-forty-four years ago. A public meeting was held in Philadelphia on 23 Nov., 1819, of which the following account, forming the leading article of the National Recorder of that week, was written by the editor of The Living Age. How well we remember clinging to the railing in the Hall (then a Court-Room)-unwilling to brush away tears, lest we should for a moment lose sight of the speaker :— The decision of the Missouri Question will form a grand era in our history; it will determine in a great degree the future character and destiny of the nation. Those who believe that public virtue and national prosperity are never separated, must look forward to the approaching session of Congress with a most earnest anxiety for the result of their deliberations upon it, and with a most ardent wish that they may use their authority in such a manner as to remove the disease now attacking the very vitals of our republic. That all men are born free and equal, is a doctrine promulgated by all our constitutions, and proudly boasted of as distinguishing us from the most favored nations of the world. The existence of anything so inconsistent with this profession as is the evil we now reprobate, cannot be imputed to the nation, for it was forced upon us by our British ancestors, and we have always used every opportunity to remove it; but if we now permit its extension to lands yet unpolluted, we shall stand convicted before the world, of voluntary continuance in a crime we have affected to deplore. was the most respectable and the most animating that we have ever seen. From young that we do not hope ever to attend another men this is but faint praise; but we will add, which shall be equal in the greatness of the cause, in the ability with which it was advocated, and in the sublimity of the effect. Were we in any degree capable of communicating its spirit, or could we transfer to our readers the feelings that were excited in ourselves, we should be most happy. The business was commenced by an address from Mr. Binney, in which, after explaining the object of the meeting, and stating the points in dispute in the last Congress, he proceeded to examine the right of that body to make the prohibition, and the expediency of exercising it. By a clear and forcible exposition of the sense of the constitution, not only from its own words, which have been said to have been carelessly used, but from the invariable practice under it, he demonstrated irresistibly the full authority of Congress. Were it possible that any one holding the contrary opinion could be free from prejudice, his conviction of the truth, after hearing this discourse, would be as distinct as the light of heaven. We had never seen so strongly or so clearly the arguments that may be deduced from the phraseology of the constitution, when it speaks of the equal rights to which the new States shall be entitled. It was triumphantly established that the strict interpretation for which we contend, was the undoubted intention of its authors, and that they never believed the power of authorizing crime, essential to perfect freedom. While discussing the question of expediThis is the last time that with any hope of ency, the orator was inspired by the full force success we can raise our voices against it. of the subject, and though there are few here Every new State that shall be permitted to who have thought at all, who were not beretain this power will array itself against us, fore perfectly convinced that the crime is as and the contest will become more and more repugnant to our interest as it is destructive desperate, till avarice and cruelty obtain a to virtue and offensive to God, there was no decisive victory, and all restraints to this in- one present who did not feel his own sober iquity be done away forever. If that shall opinions irradiated more vividly by the full take place it does not require the spirit of blaze of truth, and the conviction of his unprophecy to foretell the fearful event. Re-derstanding strengthened by the warmth of peated insurrections will prepare the way for his heart. a servile war, in which the wrongs of human nature will be deeply avenged, those who escape must shelter themselves with those who now warn them, a disunion of the States must take place, and the hopes of the nation will be trampled in the dust. The public meeting, the proceedings of The whole examination of the question was made with the most logical precision as well as the most noble eloquence, and we were proud to feel while sitting in the room from whence the declaration of independence was sounded, that the subject and the speaker were worthy of the place. From The Saturday Review, 4 July. THE future course of the adjourned debate on Mr. Roebuck's motion will certainly not affect the division. Only an insignificant minority will support the proposal to overrule the discretion of the Government, and probably the question will not even be pressed to a division. The bulk of the Opposition will remember that Lord Derby has hitherto opposed recognition, and that he has not given any intimation of a change of policy. If American politicians are capable of being influenced by English opinion, they may collect from the debate the all but universal conviction, that peace is desirable, and compulsory reunion impossible. Even Mr. Forster expressed his hope that the war would terminate with the capture of Vicksburg, which would, as he anticipated, exclude the country west of the Mississippi from the area of present or future slavery. Mr. Bright alone clung to the hope of re-conquest, although he admitted the impossibility of predicting the fortunes and result of the war. Mr. Gladstone deprecated the adoption of Mr. Roebuck's motion on the ground that a recognition of the South by England would probably prolong and embitter the struggle which it might seem to discountenance. Lord Robert Cecil, on the other hand, thought that the official declaration of France and England would convince the Northern population that the prosecution of the war was hopeless. All parties concurred in desiring the same result, although the means which they proposed for adoption varied as widely as their sympathies. It may be doubted whether the authority of the House of Commons, or of its principal members, will possess any weight in the Federal States. All nations receive with a certain irritation the criticism and the counsels of foreigners and the American newspapers will accompany their accounts of the debate with the most invidious comments. It is unpleasant to overhear the candid opinion of a neighbor on any domestic dispute, but it is still more provoking to receive his unasked advice. Lord Russell and Lord Lyons could tell Mr. Seward nothing relating to American affairs which he has not the fullest opportunity of knowing; and if he is curious to ascertain the views of English statesmen, he may easily satisfy himself by reading Mr. Gladstone's speech. An offer of joint or separate mediation would produce an offensive reply to England, although the share of France in the overture would be noticed in courteous and grateful terms. The failure of any offer of negotiation is, indeed, so inevitable, that the advocates of intervention now desire to proceed at once to the more decided measure of recognition. It remained for them to show that their proposal was conformable to precedent, that it was just, and, above all, that it was expedient. Lord Robert Montagu and Lord Robert Cecil discussed at length the well known cases of recognition, dwelling especially on the precedent of the Spanish colonies. Mr. O'Sullivan formerly United States' Minister in Portugal, in a well written pamphlet, urges against his former country the proceedings of the American Government in Texas and in Hungary. The argument would be forcible if the conduct of the United States had in either instance been regular and justifiable; but it is impossible to bind a great country by admissions made in another controversy, or to enforce an untenable proposition on the existing members of a Government because it may have been practically applied by their predecessors. It has been generally held that President Taylor and Mr. Webster committed an error in authorizing a diplomatic agent to recognize, at his own discretion, the independence of Hungary. The selfish or corrupt motives which dictated the recognition of Texas deprive the precedent of all possible value. The province, or rather the American settlers within its limits, revolted from Mexico in 1837, and within a year President Jackson recognized its independence. In 1844, the transaction was completed by the annexation of the new and sovereign State to the American Union. Napoleon was in the habit, in the same manner, of establishing independent kingdoms in his neighborhood, until it was found convenient to transform them into departments of the empire; but the processes by which superior force is employed in the service of cupidity furnish international jurisprudence with no available precedents. The inquiry whether the recognition of an insurgent State furnishes a just cause of war is in itself of secondary importance. It is more to the purpose to ask whether the recognition, at the present moment, of the Southern Confederacy would cause a declaration of war by the Federal Government. The strongest advocates of the measure admit that a rupture would ensue if England acted without the support of Europe, or, according to Mr. Roebuck's definition, of France. When they point out the inability of the North to resist the overwhelming strength of the two great powers, they by no means prove that war would be avoided. The Americans, with all their faults, are spirited and confident, and if they were persuaded that they had suffered a wrong, they would be little disposed to count the number of their enemies. Some of their leaders would be glad, at any cost, to escape from a hopeless struggle against the South, with an excuse for their failure in the neces sity of resisting European aggression. A | Europe that the Southern States declared their plausible cause of war would suit their pur- independence, or that the North has expended pose sufficiently, even if it were ultimately decided that the recognition of the South was covered by competent precedents. half a million of lives in the attempt to reconquer their allegiance. Mr. Bright's singular speculations on the policy of a Union re-constituted under Southern influence are even more unprofitable than Mr. Roebuck's aspirations for the dismemberment of the great Republic. If it is conceivable that New England and New York should give their adhesion to Mr. Jefferson Davis as President of the Republic, Mr. Bright's adopted compatriots must be more whimsically insincere than the worst of their journalists and dem Mr. Roebuck, in his ungenerous and studiously indiscreet speech, virtually accepted the natural consequence of the policy which he supported. Although it is an absurd exaggeration to boast that the Warrior could sweep the Federal navy from the seas, it is perfectly true that no effective resistance could be offered to the maritime power of England and of France; but even if the casual weakness of a friendly State were any ex-agogues. cuse for measures which would lead to war, The House of Commons will not fail to dethe struggle would not end with the abolition cide on the simple issue of recognition, which, of the blockade, and the resentment which in default of further action, would be as usewould be provoked would long survive the less to the South as it would be offensive to present generation. The liberation of the the Federal States. The more serious conSouthern stores of cotton, and the conclusion tingency of war is distinctly contemplated of a commercial treaty with the Confederacy, by Mr. Roebuck, as well as by Mr. Spence would, even in respect of material cost, be and Mr. O'Sullivan; but, on a question of dearly purchased by a year, perhaps by ten the expediency of a rupture with the United years, of war. The persistent attempt to States, Mr. Roebuck himself would not venconquer the South may be regarded by many ture on a division. The speeches and the as a blunder, and by some as a crime, but it cheers which express the goodwill of many is impossible to suggest that the incidental members to the Southern cause indicate no injury which it inflicts on England is a just intention of promoting, at the expense of cause for hostilities. Those who are most England, the final disruption which is thought immediately interested in the supply of cot- to be otherwise certain. The confidential ton demand no armed assistance from the communication of the supposed wishes which Government, and even if Lancashire were a foreign potentate declined to address, in clamorous, the English nation is not yet pre- the regular form, to the Government, would pared to violate international right for a pe-alone have sufficed to insure the defeat of Mr. cuniary or commercial consideration. Mr. Roebuck's motion. The policy which is unRoebuck, indeed, attempts to strengthen his advisable for England is not additionally reccase by pointing out the expediency of dimin-ommended by the suggestion that it might ishing the formidable strength of the former supply a fresh occasion for following in the Union. If he had wished to deprive his wake of France. The strongest Opposition speech and his motion of all moral weight, would be paralyzed by the belief that it was both in England and America, he could not acting in concert with a foreign power for the have avowed an unworthy motive with more purpose of thwarting the Government, or of damaging candor. The legitimate greatness subjecting its course to irregular pressure. of a foreign country is no excuse for projects Mr. Fox's popularity was damaged by the against its prosperity. Mr. Bright paradox- charge that he had encouraged Catherine II. ically argued that the Union would be re- to refuse Mr. Pitt's demand for the evacuastrained, by the rights of the several States, tion of Oczakow. At a later period, Alexfrom any wanton aggression on foreign pow-ander I. was warned by his more sagacious ers. He might fairly have maintained that advisers of his error in attempting to intrigue the Federal Republic of the North, with its increased centralization, will be a more dangerous neighbor than the undivided Union. In another generation the Northern States will contain a population of forty millions, and they may not improbably have acquired the habit of maintaining large standing armies. It is, however, a waste of time to discuss the possible interest of England in union or in separation. It was not for the sake of with the English Opposition. Even if Mr. Roebuck's statements were true, they ought never to have been made; and if the accuracy of his recollection is disproved, his want of reserve is still more censurable. The boldness which ventures on saying what ordinary men are too prudent to say is by no means universally to be esteemed a valuable or useful quality. From The Saturday Review, 4 July. WHO is it that has told the lie? Is it Mr. Roebuck, or the emperor, or Baron Gros, or Lord Russell, or Mr. Layard? That is the question upon which the public will be at liberty to indulge in any amount of conjecture until Monday next. The one only fact that stands out quite clear against the haze of mystery which surrounds the strange disclosures of which Mr. Roebuck has been the channel, is that there must have been gross equivocation, amounting to a deception, somewhere. The contradiction which the officials of the Foreign Office have given to Mr. Roebuck's statements is too plump and unqualified to leave them, or him, or his imperial informant, any loophole of retreat. Either their words, or Mr. Roebuck's words, are false. But when we get beyond this one cardinal fact, that there is a lie somewhere, we have no further solid ground to tread upon. All beyond is airy, unsubstantial imagination. It is impossible to construct any reasonable hypothesis that shall give a fair account of the motives of any one of these great personages, whoever it was, that was guilty of giving currency to so audacious a fabrication. That Mr. Roebuck should be the deceiver appears, on a first view, to be the least likely theory of all. Putting aside all comparisons of individual character, which in such a controversy it would be invidious to institute, it is evident that the statements which rest on the authority of two witnesses are pro tanto worth more than those which are attested only by one. All that Mr. Roebuck heard from the lips of the emperor was heard equally by Mr. Lindsay. That the two should conspire to state that which both knew to be false -considering not only their antecedent character, but the certainty of detection-is a very difficult supposition. It is equally inconceivable that Baron Gros should have deliberately invented a defence for the benefit of Lord Russell, against the known wishes of his own master. The responsibility of the deception would seem, therefore, to rest either upon the shoulders of the English foreign secretary or of the French emperor. Yet such a dilemna in no way clears up the difficulties of this most inexplicable case. At first sight, it seems impossible that either of these great personages can have made any mistake in the matter, and still more unlikely that they should have staked their names upon a misrepresentation that was certain to be found out. It has been suggested that possibly the French emperor may be of opinion that it is worth his while to make some sacrifice of his reputation for veracity for the sake of disarming forever the bitter and cour ageous "Tear 'em." It is clear that Mr. Roebuck can never again use expressions about the French emperor such as those Mr. Bright quoted against him on Tuesday evening. But it is hardly probable that so circumspect an intriguer as Louis Napoleon should have betaken himself to a stratagem so suicidal. At whatever price he may appraise the silencing of Mr. Roebuck, it is scarcely to be supposed that he would proffer it for no other purpose than to exasperate still further the British Watchdog. If the emperor did tell the two self-appointed ambassadors that which was absolutely contrary to fact, and give them leave to make the House of Commons sharers in his confidence, he must have known that a few days would make the deception that had been practised clear, not only to the world, but to Mr.. Roebuck and Mr. Lindsay themselves. And the bitterness of a duped agent, when he is once undeceived, would clearly be a more formidable motive to hostility than mere political antagonism. Nor is there much probability in the explanation which was yesterday suggested by a semi-official organ of the English Government. If Mr. Roebuck had been alone, he might possibly have mistaken the emperor's silent acquiescence in his own vehement arguments for a statement coming from the emperor himself. Such a confusion is not very unusual in the recollections of eager talkers. But no one ever heard of such an error extending itself to a taciturn bystander. It is understood that Mr. Lindsay endorses all Mr. Roebuck's assertions. Human testimony becomes simply worthless, if two hard-headed, experienced men, after so brief an interval of time, could impute a wholly fictitious and imaginary statement to a man who was conversing with them alone, and whose language they were anxiously watching. There is, however, internal evidence in the case, so far as it goes, which seems to weigh against the English statesmen. Whatever else he may be the Emperor of the French is not a fool. He must have known that to authorize two members of the House of Commons.to represent to that body his grievances against their own ministers was a violent departure from conventional usage, and that it would, on that account, create great excitement, and must end in arousing a strong feeling in England, either against himself or against the minister of whom he complained. He must, if Mr. Roebuck's statement be correct, have had a reason for risking this alternative. He knows England well, and it is clear that he wishes to act in harmony with her. It is difficult, therefore, to believe that he can have taken so hazardous a step without some very strong motive. Assuming that the account given by the Government is true, |