was argued, would directly benefit England herself by cutting down military expenditures[74].  The London Press indulged in similar speculation, though from the angle of a Canadian annexation of the Northern States, whose more sober citizens must by now be weary of the sham of American democracy, and disgusted with the rowdyism of political elections, which “combine the morals of a horse race, the manners of a dog fight, the passions of a tap-room, and the emotions of a gambling house[75].”  Probably such suggestions had little real purpose or meaning at the moment, but it is interesting that this idea of a “compensation” in Canada should have been voiced thus early.  Even in the United States the same thought had occurred to a few political leaders.  Charles Sumner held it, though too wise, politically, to advance it in the face of the growing Northern determination to preserve the Union.  It lay at the bottom of his increasing bitterness toward his old friend Charles Francis Adams, now busy in schemes intended, apparently, to restore the Union by compromise, and it led Sumner to hope for appointment as Minister to England[76].

The chief organ of British upper-class opinion, the Times, was one of the first to begin the process of “face about,” as civil war in America seemed imminent[77].  Viewed from the later attitude of the Times, the earlier expressions of that paper, and in truth of many British journals, seem merely the customary platitudinous British holding up of horrified hands at American slavery.  On January 19, 1861, a strong editorial still proclaimed the folly of South Carolina, as acting “without law, without justice,” but displayed a real dismay at the possible consequences of war to British trade and commerce.  On January 22, the Times reprinted an article from the Economist, on a probable cessation of cotton supply and editorially professed great alarm, even advocating an early recognition of the Southern confederacy if needed to maintain that supply.  From this time on there is no further note in the Times of the righteousness of the Northern cause; but while it is still asserted that war would be folly, the strength of the South, its superiority as a military nation, are depicted.

A long break of nearly six weeks follows with little editorial comment.  Soon the correspondence from New York, previously written by Bancroft Davis, and extremely favourable to the Northern cause, was discontinued.  W.H.  Russell, the famous war correspondent of the Crimea, was summoned to London and, according to his own story, upon being given papers, clippings, and correspondence (largely articles from the New York Herald) supporting the right of the South to secede, hastily took his departure for America to report upon the situation[78].  He sailed from Queenstown on March 3, and arrived in New York on March 16.  At last on March 12, the Times took positive ground in favour of the justice of the Southern cause.