was omitted in the official way. It was certainly a pity that Mr.
Welles's paragraph respecting the "Trent" was not omitted also. The
President was dumb on the matter, and that being so the Secretary
should have been dumb also.

But when the demand was made, the States government yielded at once,
and yielded without bluster. I cannot say I much admired Mr.
Seward's long letter. It was full of smart special pleading, and
savored strongly, as Mr. Seward's productions always do, of the
personal author. Mr. Seward was making an effort to place a great
State paper on record, but the ars celare artem was altogether
wanting; and, if I am not mistaken, he was without the art itself.
I think he left the matter very much where he found it. The men,
however, were to be surrendered, and the good policy consisted in
this, that no delay was sought, no diplomatic ambiguities were put
into request. It was the opinion of very many that some two or
three months might be gained by correspondence, and that at the end
of that time things might stand on a different footing. If during
that time the North should gain any great success over the South,
the States might be in a position to disregard England's threats.
No such game was played. The illegality of the arrest was at once
acknowledged, and the men were given up with a tranquillity that
certainly appeared marvelous after all that had so lately occurred.

Then came Mr. Sumner's field day. Mr. Charles Sumner is a Senator
from Massachusetts, known as a very hot abolitionist, and as having
been the victim of an attack made upon him in the Senate House by
Senator Brooks. He was also, at the time of which I am writing,
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which position is as
near akin to that of a British minister in Parliament as can be