« PreviousContinue »
costly merchandise and they are busy distributing it to all parts of the world. They sell at wholesale as well as retail, and I have no doubt its annual volume of business is ten times greater than that of Paris.
The English are not an agreeable people. They are rather independent than polite — cold, not sympathizing easily with strangers - brutal rather than kindly. Still they mean to be just from their standpoint and that, they have full faith, is the only true one. I rather value their character because we as Americans cannot deny but what we are immensely like them. Our bad points as well as good are largely inherited. I think we have improved upon our ancestry. We speak better English and as a whole are quite as independent and as a whole far better schooled. Their best scholars may be above our standard, but the standard of the millions must be far below that of the United States. Unfortunately any one next below the nobility expects to rise, and toadies to his superiors. The next lower class toadies to the next above it, and so there is little hope of abolishing any distinctions save that of merit. In this we in the United States are greatly in advance of the English. With us reverence must be earned it cannot be commanded by inheritance. Every man must work out his own salvation in America, and I deem that not only sound in religion but in politics.
During this second visit to London he retraced his steps over some of the ground covered in his earlier stay: he revisited the Abbey, the British Museum, Windsor, and the Houses of Parliament. As a recently elected Senator, the House of Lords drew him strongly and he attended at least two debates there on which his comments are full of pith and point:
I went into the House of Lords once more and listened to an important debate on the Reform Bill. There is little room for spectators, and not more than twenty were present, of whom seven at least were Americans. The speaking was more quiet and tame than our style — more like ordinary conversation, even their set speeches. I heard Lord Cairns, Lord Russell, Lord Malmesbury, Cardigan (of the brave 600), Monckton Milnes, and others, but they did not seem to me the equals of Fessenden,
Sumner, Trumbull, Johnson, Sherman, or even several others among our Senators. Still I may be too much biased by inability to appreciate men of a foreign country for which just now we have little cause for gratitude.
Two weeks later he records another session in the upper chamber:
Before I left I spent Monday night in the House of Lords and listened to the debate upon the final disposition of the Reform Bill after the House of Commons had adopted one of their amendments — that for the representation of the minority among threecornered constituencies — and rejected all the rest. Lord Derby opened the debate in an elegant and rather captivating speech, showing that reason was altogether and all the time with the Lords and yet recommending a concurrence with all the conclusions of the House of Commons. Lord John Russell not only so recommended, but thought the Commons were right in their reasons all the time. Lord Salisbury, the Earl of Stanhope, and some others, like the Marquis of Westminster, were going to vote as Lord Derby desired, but they were by no means satisfied. I find that the best speakers, whether in the House of Lords or Commons, most nearly approach the American standard in their use of language and style of delivery. ... There is one excellence in the best style of English-speaking for Legislative bodies — it is not so declamatory nor so earnest and emphatic as that of Americans, but it is clear, candid, and appeals more exclusively to the sound judgment of the hearers. It is more quiet and conversational in its tone. I still think we have more good debaters than they have here in proportion to numbers and they are certainly more orderly and decorous in their behavior. Here any one disliked or who is so unfortunate as not to be an attractive speaker can hardly obtain a hearing. ... In the House of Lords the Chancellor puts questions, but each member addresses, “My Lords," not "Mr. President" nor the Chancellor, and if two rise to speak at the same time, voices all over the house will at once sing out, “Earl Russell," or "Earl Stanhope," whichever they want most to hear, and the other has to sit down — drowned down by the clamor for another party.
Morrill had seen the capital and many of the provincial
towns of England and his time was growing short. To Edinburgh and the region made famous by Scott and Burns he dedicated his last few days. On Sunday, August 18th, he wrote his final jottings from Edinburgh:
The people look sharp and thrifty here. In cities they will be crowded, and there are many dirty, narrow places, holding dirty and ignorant people, but as a whole the Scotch look intelligent and are nearly as independent, I judge, as they were in the days of John Knox, whose house I went to see, going all over it. Only one chair remains that belonged to him, and that of course I sat down in, as I did in Calvin's, but the rooms, doors, fireplaces, and ceilings are much as they were when the Reverend John used to thunder in the ears of poor Mary. The study of John Knox was not bigger than a china closet, having a fireplace, small desk, and one short shelf for books: proof that it is not many books that makes the strong man at all, but rather a few and much strong thinking upon the part of the reader.
He had visited Melrose and Dryburgh and Abbotsford where he had lingered over the relics of Sir Walter; he had spent a sentimental hour in Holyrood Palace reflecting on the character and fate of Queen Mary; he had paced the long halls of the castle, had set his foot on the spot in the pavement marked as the Heart of Midlothian, and had climbed, in the company of Blaine and Garfield, the two rising leaders of the Republican Party, to Arthur's Seat, where they had taken a last view over the romantic old town. It made a fitting climax to a memorable tour and he turned his face homeward well content.
THE IMPEACHMENT OF JOHNSON
THE last line that had reached the travelers as they set off for Europe was a message from Washington about the project for impeaching President Johnson. The storm of partisan feeling against the President was gradually rising, to burst in that impeachment trial which forms one of the least satisfactory pages of our history and which was only saved from black tragedy by the heroism of the seven Republican Senators who opposed the party will and voted for acquittal.
The news they received by way of European newspapers indicated that an extra session of Congress would be summoned in July and might deal with the issue of impeachment. This caused Morrill much disquiet which not even the charms of Venice could wholly soothe, for he could see nothing but disaster in the course his party seemed bent on taking. He felt some resentment also that Seward, one of the conspicuous leaders of his party, should have remained in Johnson's Cabinet. He wrote his wife on the 28th of June from the Hotel del Europe on the Grand Canal:
To-day I am somewhat alarmed lest Congress should really meet while I am away. I think if it does meet the Democrats will be very likely to carry the next election. The country cannot afford that, whatever the demerits of Johnson. Pennsylvania and New York, I fear, will be lost to us with very slight provocation which a Congress for impeachment would not fail to offer. I shall yet trust that Congress will, if it meets at all, only meet to adjourn till October. Judging by the papers I see (very meager) I should think by the course of Johnson and his ally, General Stanberry, that they want to provoke Congress to impeachment
on the ground that their party have more to gain than to lose by such a procedure. I see that W. H. Seward, whilom the antimasonic Governor of New York, goes with the President to Boston to attend a Masonic Festival and at the invitation of Royal Arch masons! Is there any other change that the Secretary can undergo?
No action was taken during the extra session, but when Congress reassembled in December, impeachment became the overshadowing issue, and on February 24, 1868, the Republicans in Congress gave a practically unanimous vote for it, undoubtedly reflecting the opinion of the Republicans in the country at large.
There is no need of retelling the story of the great trial in which Morrill as a Senator sat as judge. His part was limited to the purely passive rôle of hearing the testimony, giving his vote for condemnation, and filing his “opinion” or defense of his vote. Other than this, his sole activity consisted in two motions: one, for facilitating the business of the trial by setting a date for the final vote and for filing opinions, which was passed; the other, designed to postpone the reassembly of the Senate after the first vote of May 16th, which was rejected.
Yet it would not be fair to assume that Morrill's attitude toward impeachment was a passive one. The feeling that animated Republicans, whether in or out of Congress, was far too intense and deep for that. To understand how strongly the tide of feeling ran through the country, it is necessary to recall that the Republicans of that time identified the country with their party. They felt that it was the Republican Party that had saved the Nation, and they felt that the only way it could be kept safe was by keeping the Republican Party in power. The Democratic Party was usually identified in the Republican mind with disloyalty. The fear, which now seems ridiculous, that Andrew Johnson and