A Sentimental Visit to England: An Address Delivered in Washington, D.C., on September 22, 1887
A SENTIMENTAL VISIT TO ENGLAND: AN ADDRESS
DELIVERED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1887
Baltimore (Md.) , 1 October 1887. Other texts in Speech File, reel 16,
frames 223-27, FD Papers, DLC; New York , 1 October 1887.
Together with his second wife, Helen Pitts Douglass, Douglass traveled ex-
tensively in Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece, and the Middle East, visiting
old friends and sight-seeing, from September 1886 to August 1887. Soon
after Douglass’s return from Europe, the black citizens of Washington ar-
ranged a reception for him at the Metropolitan A.M.E. Church on 22 Sep-
tember 1887. The pastor of the church, Theophilus G. Stewart, presided over
the meeting which began at 7:30 P.M. The Reverend Robert H. G. Dyson
opened the meeting with prayer followed by several songs by the school choir,
a speech by school superintendent Winfield S. Montgomery, and a poetry
recitation by the Reverend Walter H. Brooks. The Reverend James A. Handy
then introduced Douglass who addressed the audience. At the end of
Douglass’s speech, Stewart’s recommendation that the 1888 Republican
ticket include Robert Todd Lincoln for president and Douglass for vice president
received loud expressions of approval. Douglass’s address was not without its
critics. The Washington asserted that while a portion of Douglass’s speech
was “eloquent and logical,” he had “failed to take advantage of the occa-
sion.” The also complained that the banquet that followed the reception
had been badly organized and poorly attended. This address was the first of
several lectures that Douglass delivered on the topic of his foreign travels to
audiences in Washington, D.C., Charleston, S.C., and possibly elsewhere.
Washington , 17, 24 September, 1, 8 October 1877; Washington , 23
September 1887; Washington , 22, 23 September 1887, 5
March 1888; Washington , 23 September 1887; Charleston
(S.C.) 8 March 1888.
When Mr. Douglass began, he said friends this is indeed an honor which I
had not expected. I am certainly a very proud man to-night, who would not
be proud at such a grand ovation as this? I thank you with all my heart; you
want to hear something about my trip to Europe and to Egypt, etc., well I
will commence at the starting point. The passage from New York to Liver-
pool on the splendid steamer, ,1The Douglasses traveled to Europe on the reportedly beautiful , then operated by the Anchor Line for the Liverpool—New York passenger traffic. Built in 1881, the 8,144-ton, 542-foot liner could cross the Atlantic in six days, twenty-one hours. Henry Fry, (London, 1896), 116, 187-89; Frederick A. Talbot, (Philadelphia, 1912), 140. the largest ship afloat except
the ,2Designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the immensity of the made it a technical wonder in its day. Because it was twice the size of any contemporary vessel, the steamer had to be launched gradually from 3 November 1857 to 31 January 1858. Unable to make it commercially viable, the owners of the had converted the ship into a showboat by the time of the voyage of the Douglasses. The couple visited it during their stay in Liverpool. The was scrapped in 1889, a decade before the construction of a ship of comparable size. George S. Emmerson, (London, n.d.), 9-33; David Budlong Tyler, (New York, 1939), 310-39; FD Diary, reel l, frames 8-9, FD Papers, DLC; Helen Pitts Douglass Diary, Family Papers File, reel 1, frame 78, FD Papers, DLC. was exceedingly pleasant. The winds and waves were
in their most amiable mood, and we made the voyage from land to land in
seven days.3The departed from New York City on 15 September 1886 at 6:30 A.M. and arrived at Liverpool on 23 September 1886. FD Diary, reel 1, frame 1, FD Papers, DLC; New York , 16 September 1886; London , 24 September 1886. In nothing has there been more progress and improvement
than in naval architecture and in navigation. Five and 40 years ago 14 days
was a short trip from New York to Liverpool—now it can be made in 6
days. Fifty years ago the great scientist, Dyonisius Lardner, proved by
facts and figures to his own satisfaction, that no vessel could carry enough
coal to propel her across the Atlantic, but theories amount to nothing
against facts accomplished.4After distinguishing himself as a student at Trinity College in his native Dublin, Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859) became professor of natural philosophy and astronomy at London University (now University College, University of London). Between 1840 and 1845, he delivered a series of popular lectures in the United States on science and art and then spent the remainder of his life in Paris. Lardner was a prolific popularizer of scientific information, particularly through the pages of the , which he edited. He frequently wrote and lectured on the steam engine and shipbuilders, and maritime investors highly valued his opinion. Although Lardner had earlier proclaimed that the quantity of fuel required for a nonstop transatlantic voyage made such a venture impossible, he amended this opinion in the mid-1830s after concluding that technological advancements made direct passages between New York and Liverpool feasible if not economically practical. Dionysius Lardner, (New York, 1828), 167-68; Tyler, , 33-34, 36-37, 39-41; New York , 28 May 1859; , 3: 617-18. The consumes a ton of coal
every five minutes during her voyages. She has 60 furnaces and a crew,
including all hands, of 250 persons. To walk her decks is like walking a
populous street: she is a small town, not on wheels, but on the waves.
Our voyage to Liverpool was marked by two incidents in which you
will be interested, since they illustrate the gradual wearing away of race
prejudice. There was on board the Rev. Henry Wayland, son of the great
Dr. Wayland, late president of Brown’s University.5Douglass incorrectly identifies the younger son of Francis Wayland (1796-1865) as Henry Wayland rather than Heman Lincoln Wayland (1830-98). The senior Wayland graduated from Union College in 1813 and after briefly studying medicine entered the Baptist ministry in 1821. Despite his relative youth, Wayland became the president of Brown University in 1827 and held that position for 28 years. He democratized the governance of the school and modernized its curriculum. An important writer on moral philosophy, Wayland had tried unsuccessfully to suppress debate over slavery among the Baptists. Heman Lincoln Wayland graduated from Brown University in 1849 and had been a tutor at the University of Rochester in 1854 when he helped Douglass to prepare a lecture on ethnology. Ordained later the same year, Wayland served as a pastor in Worcester, Massachusetts, until joining the Seventh Connecticut Infantry Regiment as a chaplain during the Civil War. He later taught at Kalamazoo College in Michigan and was president of Franklin College in Indiana before commencing two decades as editor of the . The two men had remained in contact over the years and Wayland insisted that Douglass address the passengers on the City of Rome. H[eman] L[incoln] Wayland to Douglass, 27 January 1885, and Douglass to H[eman] L[incoln] Wayland, 29 January 1885, General Correspondence File, reel 4, frames 122, 131-33, FD Papers, DLC; FD Diary, reel 1, frame 3, FD Papers, DLC; Helen Pitts Douglass Diary, Family Papers File, reel 1, frame 54, FD Papers, DLC; Rosenberger, Rochester, 73, 121 ; William T. Stott, (Franklin, Ind., 1908), 352-54; , 6: 397-98; , 10: 494; , 17: 558-60. Mr. Wayland had
known me years ago and had been my friend in Rochester. He is one of
God’s freemen. Through him I was made known to many of the pas-
sengers, and this resulted in a strong invitation to address the passengers in
the saloon with which I complied. After this I was called upon by Capt.
Monroe6On the evening of 20 September 1886, Douglass gave a short address to an assembly of passengers on board the , presided over by its captain, R. D. Munro. Helen Pitts Douglass Diary, Family Papers File, reel 1, frames 54, 61; FD Diary, reel l, frames 3-4, FD Papers, DLC; American Shipmasters' Association, (New York, 1886), 272. to move a vote of thanks in a brief speech to Lord Rochester,7Actually Lord Porchester, George Edward Stanhope Molyneux Porchester (1866-1923), who later succeeded his father to become the fifth earl of Carnarvon. Bom at Highclere Castle, near Newbury, Carnarvon attended Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge University, where he developed an interest in sports and a reputation as an intelligent idler. When Douglass encountered him, he was on a tour that took him practically around the globe. Because of injuries from an automobile accident in 1901, Carnarvon began spending his winters in Egypt, where he rekindled an earlier interest in archaeology. In 1922, Carnarvon and Howard Carter discovered the tomb of Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamen. The chronically ill Carnarvon died the following year of complications arising from an insect bite, amidst widespread speculation that he was the victim of an ancient curse. W[alter] W[illiam] Rouse Ball and J[ohn] A. Venn, eds., , Cambridge, 5 vols. (London, 1911-16), 5: 775; Howard Carter and A[mett] C. Mace, , 3 vols. (London, 1923-33), 1: 1-40; Thomas Hoving, (New York, 1978), 17-29; New York , 16 September 1886; , 1922-1938, 414-15. who
had presided at a concert given in the grand saloon by some talented
musicians, thus my privacy was at an end, and I had much talking to do
which I could not avoid.
A striking contrast between the treatment I received during this voyage
and that of 40 years ago, was as striking as it was gratifying. Then I could
not obtain a first class passage—even on a British steamship and was
compelled to go in the forward cabin. Now I found myself not only wel-
come in the first cabin, but treated by every body with special marks of
interest and esteem. It is true, that although I belonged to the forward cabin
40 years ago I made many friends during that voyage and was then, as on
the late voyage, invited to deliver an address on the saloon deck of the
, but I did not comply till invited to do so by the captain. There
were several slave holders on board and a number of dough-faces from the
North. I had hardly been speaking 10 minutes when one of the wildest,
bitterest and most devilish rows occurred that I ever saw. It was only put
down by the captain calling upon the boatswain to bring up the irons and
threatening to put any one in irons who dared to disturb me. A most unfair
account of this outbreak of proslavery violence has gone into the history of
the Cunard line, denouncing me as the cause of the disturbance on the same
principle that the slaves used to be denounced as the cause of the war. The
fact is, slave holders at that time were dictators on sea and land, and the
Cunard line, although flying the British flag, found it for their interest to
yield to slave holding dictation, but I believe I am the last man of color
proscribed on even the Cunard line. I made such a noise in England about it
at the time that Samuel Cunard8Born to Loyalist parents who had migrated to Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the American Revolution, Sir Samuel Cunard (1787-1865) joined his father's timber and shipping firm at an early age. In 1839, the younger Cunard was the leading partner in the establishment of the British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, later to become the Cunard Steamship Company. Cunard held a near monopoly on transatlantic steam travel until the 1850s and thereafter, despite competition from British and American rivals, retained a large share of the field thanks to his ships' reputation for speed and safety. Abraham Martin Payne, “The Life of Sir Samuel Cunard: Founder of the Cunard Steamship Line, 1787-1865," , 19: 75- 91 (1918); (Toronto, 1966-), 9: 172-86. himself publicly declared that there should
be no more proscription on his ships on account of race and color.
Contemplation of the forces of nature is enlarging. Standing on the
deck of the and moving among its company of passengers so
unlike in appearance and character, and then looking out upon the broad,
dashing billows of the Atlantic suggested to my mind the formula that the
types of mankind are various. They differ like the waves, but are one like
the sea.
THE HOME RULE QUESTION.
The features of England are too well known to justify me in saying
much about my sojourn in that country. It is common now-a-days to speak
of England as a declining power in comparison with the rest of the world,
and there may be truth in that representation, but the American who travels
there will see nothing on the surface to justify that conclusion. Great
Britain, though small in territory and limited in population, as compared
with our Republic, is still Great Britain—great in her civilization, great in
physical and mental vigor, great in her statesmanship, and great in her
elements of power and stability. The question uppermost when we landed
there, as when we left there, was Home Rule, or coercion for Ireland.9The Home Rule campaign, though part of the long standing Irish nationalist movement, officially began in 1870 with the establishment of the Home Government Association by Isaac Butt, a Protestant lawyer and member of parliament. The movement proposed the establishment of an Irish legislature, separate from and superior to the British Parliament in measures regarding the island. Gradually, a militant wing known as the New Departure evolved among the Home Rulers, under the leadership of Charles Stewart Parnell and others. Parnell merged his group with the more popularly based Land League, an organization working to aid lrish peasants gain possession of the nation's farm lands. After Butt's death in 1879, Parnell became the parliamentary leader of the Home Rule party. The 1885 election gave that group the balance of power in the new parliament and British Liberal party leader William Ewart Gladstone won the backing of the Irish with a promise to introduce Home Rule legislation. The Liberal party, however, split over the issue and Gladstone's bill lost in June 1886. A subsequent election turned control of parliament over to an alliance of the Conservative party and defectors from the Liberals. A later Gladstone government pushed a Home Rule bill through the House of Commons in 1892 but the House of Lords soundly defeated it. This defeat prompted the elderly Gladstone to resign his Liberal party leadership, which marked the death of Home Rule as a political movement within the constitution of the United Kingdom. Peter Gibbon, (Manchester, Eng., 1975), 1-2; Karl S. Bottingheimer, (New York, 1982), 202-07; D. George Boyce, (London, 1982), 192-223. No
question of modern times has stirred England as deeply as this. It has rent
asunder parties, cast down leaders, broken up friendships, and divided
families; men who have acted together in politics during nearly half a
century have all at once found themselves widely separated on this vast and
vital question. There is much strength in positions of each party. As in the
case of our maintenance of our union, I believe that good order, liberty and
civilization will be better served and better received in the union of Great
Britain and Ireland than outside of it. The spirit of the age does not favor
small nationalities; extension, organization, unification are more in har-
mony with the wisdom of the times.
The trouble in Ireland, however, is not its limited population, its de-
stitution of statesmen, or its ability to maintain an independent govern-
ment, but that there is in reality two Irelands; one loyal to the union, and the
other anxious for complete separation. The loyal part of the people of
Ireland as a class, are Protestant, and the Home Rule men are largely
Catholic; so just here is the bitterest element in the British political
cauldron. The Tory party profess to see in Home Rule the entering wedge to
the entire separation of Ireland from England, and handing over the whole
loyal Protestant Population into the power of the hostile Catholic—a result
they look upon with unaffected horror. It is this which has caused even the
generous and noble-minded John Bright to array his powerful influence
against Home Rule. A Republican in his sympathies, and in convictions he
yet shrinks back in horror from applying the Republican majority rule to
Ireland. His great friend, Mr. Gladstone,10William Ewan Gladstone. hitherto far more conservative
than Mr. Bright, has no such scruples. He seems quite willing to trust the
fairness and justice of the majority. He is bitterly reproached for his change
of front. It is said he did not always hold his present liberal views towards
Ireland, and that his conversion is far too sudden to be genuine. His answer
to this, however, seems to be honest, statesmanlike and conclusive. He
tried coercion for Ireland so long as he thought coercion the only remedy
for the ills of that country. He treated Ireland as a wise physician would
treat his patient; having his health steadily in view, when [he] found that
one course of treatment failed to restore health, he tried another. His
method was changed, but his object never.
I hardly need say, that I am in sympathy with Home Rule for Ireland, as
held by Mr. Gladstone, I am so, both for the sake of England and for the
sake of Ireland. The former will throw off a tremendous load both in money
and in reputation by granting it. The glory of England will cease to be
soiled with shame for the grievances of Ireland, and Ireland will be put
upon her good behavior before the world, and made responsible for her
own good or ill condition. Though often charged with seeking the dismem-
berment of the British Empire, I believe Mr. Gladstone is as firm a friend to
the Union between England and Ireland as any man in the United King-
dom, but he is for the rule of justice instead of the rule of the bayonet, the
rule of love instead of the rule of hate, the rule of trust and confidence
instead of the rule of doubt and suspicion.
I wanted to see this famous statesman and orator while in London. It
has been my good fortune to hear many of the best speakers in this country
and in England. I have heard Webster, Everett, Sumner, Phillips,11Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, Charles Sumner, and Wendell Phillips. and
other great American orators, living and dead. I have also heard Sir Robert
Peel, Richard Cobden, George Thompson, John Bright, Lord Brougham,
O’Connell,12Lord Peter Henry Brougham and Daniel O'Connell. and other great speakers in England, and I felt it would be
something to hear the peer of any of the greatest of them. Well, the oppor-
tunity was afforded me. I heard Mr. Gladstone, under the most favorable
conditions. It was on an occasion of his motion in Parliament to reject the
infamous Coercion Bill.13Douglass probably visited Parliament on 7 July 1887 when William Ewart Gladstone, leader of the minority Liberal party in the House of Commons, delivered a speech in opposition to the third reading of the Irish “Crimes” or “Coercion” bill. The Conservative party government of Lord Salisbury had introduced this measure to grant special powers to the police to suppress Irish organizations that aided or encouraged rural tenants in withholding rents from landlords. Gladstone's motion lost and the bill passed Parliament and allowed the Salisbury government to arrest many Irish nationalist leaders. , 3d ser., 317: 86-102. For weeks the bill had been debated and Mr.
Gladstone had borne his full share in that debate and I was anxious to know
what he would say further, the tide of public opinion set strongly against
him, and the passage of the bill was already assured. The press of the
country, for the most part, had kept up a steady fire upon him [and] loaded
him with reproaches of the bitterest kind. The House was crowded, and all
eyes were turned upon him when he rose to make his last great effort to
defeat this force bill for Ireland, which he knew could not be defeated, but
Mr. Gladstone had a duty to perform and he performed it admirably. The
first glance at his face impressed me. There was a singular blending of
qualities in it, the lamb and the lion, were there: dauntless as a veteran
soldier and, yet, meek as a saint. His speech was one of the grandest I ever
heard, and was listened to with profoundest silence by the whole House,
my expectations were high, very high, but in some respects they were far
exceeded. For one hour and a half, without pause, and without once hesi-
tating for a word, he poured out one stream of eloquence, learning and
argument which seemed to be irresistible. When he sat down the govern-
ment benches, as well as the opposite benches were immediately emptied,
and poor Mr. Balfour,14Raised on his family’s estates in Scotland, Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930) received his formal education at Eton and at Trinity College, Cambridge University. In 1874, he entered Parliament as a supporter of Disraeli's last Conservative party government. Four years later he became private secretary to his uncle, Lord Salisbury, the foreign secretary, and accompanied him to the Congress of Berlin in 1878. His first major political office was as chief secretary for Ireland from March 1887 to October 1891. His unwavering policy of coercion in Ireland, characterized by the violent suppression of a riot by Irish nationalists at Michaelstown in September 1887, earned him the nickname “Bloody Balfour.” He balanced these repressive measures with economic reforms, especially the protection of peasants against exploitative absentee landlords. In October 1891, Balfour succeeded William H. Smith as Conservative leader of the House of Commons, a position he retained until 1911. As prime minister from July 1902 to December 1905, when he resigned, Balfour successfully dealt with such controversial issues as educational and tariff reform and the Irish Home Rule agitation. During World War I, Balfour undertook valuable work for relief committees, became first lord of the admiralty in May 1915, and later served as foreign secretary. In November 1917, Balfour issued a declaration in favor of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. Following the conclusion of the peace treaty, he resigned as foreign secretary but still remained in the Cabinet as lord president of the council. In May 1922, he received the titles Earl of Balfour and Viscount Traprain. Max Egremont, (London, 1980); , 41-57. the secretary for Ireland, was left almost without
an audience.
My visit to England was in some respects sentimental, I wanted to see
the faces and press the hands of some of the dear friends and acquaintances
I met there over 40 years ago. In our meeting there was something pathetic.
Neither they nor I were as young and strong as when we met so long ago. I
saw the two ladies15Douglass refers to British Quakers Ellen Richardson (1808-96) and her cousin Anna Richardson Foster (1809-93) who, besides their assistance to Douglass, had been involved in the 1854 purchase of William Wells Brown. In her native Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Ellen dedicated herself to the education of working-class girls, holding supervisory posts at both the Royal Jubilee School for Girls and St. Mary’s School. Raised in the home of Ellen's parents after the death of her father, Anna devoted herself to fundraising for the education of children of the poor. Married to Robert Foster in 1858, the couple jointly edited and published , a periodical advocating the free produce movement. [Mary C. Pumphrey,] (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1896); R. J. M. Blackett, (Baton Rouge, 1983), 120, 122, 134; Howard Temperley, (Columbia, S.C., 1972), 245. who [engaged?] Walter Forward16Educated in the village school of his hometown, East Granby, Connecticut, Walter Forward (1786-1852) worked on his parents' farm before moving to Pittsburgh in 1803. There he studied law and edited the Democratic party newspaper Tree of Liberty before his election to Congress in 1822. Defeated for reelection in 1824, Forward later participated in the organization of the Whig party, with which he remained affiliated. After brief service as William Henry Harrison's comptroller of the
currency, Forward accepted appointment in 1841 to the position of secretary of the treasury in the administration of John Tyler which he held until 1843. Forward interrupted his return to law practice in Pittsburgh to accept appointment as chargé d'affaires to Denmark. He served in that diplomatic post until elected judge of the district court of Allegheny County in 1851. Robert M. Ewing, “Hon. Walter Forward," , 8: 76-89 (January 1925); A[ndrew] A[rnold] Lambing and J[ohn] W. F. White, (Pittsburgh, 1888), 112-13; , 906; , 2: 508-09; , 6: 5-6; , 3: 537-38. of Pittsburgh, and
Mr. Merideth,17Douglass probably refers to Jonathan Meredith (1784-1872), a Philadelphia-born lawyer, who entered the bar at Baltimore in 1805. A commercial lawyer, he also served as junior counsel in the impeachment trial of Judge James Hawkins Peck before the U.S. Senate in 1831. Meredith’s performance in this case won him considerable praise and subsequently much lucrative legal business. He acted as a go-between in the negotiations for Douglass's purchase from the Auld family in 1846. (Baltimore, 1871), 371; John Hill Martin, (Philadelphia, 1883); Baltimore (Md.) , 2 February 1872. of Philadelphia, and through them bought me out of
slavery, secured a bill of sale of my body, made a present of myself to
myself and thus enabled me to return to the United States, and resume my
work for the emancipation of the slaves. It was a great priviledge to see these
two good women, and to see others who assisted them in raising the money to
ransom me. If I had no other compensation for my voyage across the sea, this
would have been ample payment. Of course many of the precious friends
who met me in England, Ireland and Scotland 40 years ago have passed
away, but I saw some of them through their children and in them recognized
their noble qualities.
One of the most interesting places for American tourists is the City of
Edinburgh, and it was especially so to me, not only on account of the
historical associations that cluster about it, and its many beautiful features,
but for the memorable controversy I took part in with the Free Church
during my first visit to Scotland—the facts are these: That church had sent
a deputation to the United States immediately after separating itself from
the established Church of Scotland, to collect money to build churches and
support its ministry. That deputation went South and collected several
thousand pounds for this purpose in the slave states and presumably from
slaveholders. George Thompson, Henry C. Wright and James N. Buffum,
lately deceased,18James Needham Buffum died on 12 June 1887. James R. Newhall, , 2 vols. (1890; Lynn, Mass., 1897), 337. made an issue with the church. We felt that it would be
good testimony against slavery if we could induce the Free Church to
follow the example of Daniel O’Connell in a like case to send back the
money. The debate was sharp and long—the excitement was great. Nearly
everybody in Scotland, outside the Free Church, were on the side of
freedom, and were sending back the money. This sentiment was written on
the pavements and walls and sung in the streets by minstrels. The very air
was full of send back the money. Forgetting that l was in a monarchy and
not in this Republic I got myself into trouble by cutting, send back the
money in the back of a seat. I was soon thereafter arrested for trespassing
on the Queen’s forests, and only got off by a written apology.
I visited the same spot when over there a few weeks ago, but the
friendly grass of 40 years ago had obliterated all trace of the famous
formula and my humiliation, as it has also happily blotted out all further
need of sentiment itself. The money, however, was never sent back, for
Scotchmen do not part with money knowing wherefor—a lesson which
colored people will do well to learn, if they ever favorably change their
relations to the people and civilization of our age.
I have travelled since I left, not only in England, Ireland and Scotland,
but in France, Switzerland, Italy, Athens and Egypt. The most civilized,
the best cultivated, and apparently the most prosperous of these countries is
England. Nothing here goes to waste, every inch of fertile soil is cultivated
and made to yield abundant harvests. The average crop of wheat is 46
bushels to the acre, exceeding that of our best Western lands.19The official calculation of the average yield of wheat per acre in Great Britain was only 26.9 bushels in 1886. In contrast, the average yield of wheat in the United States in 1886 was just 14.2 bushels per acre. B[rian] R[edman] Mitchell, (Cambridge, 1962), 90; U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Washington, D.C., 1975), Part I, ser. K502-516. Its fields are
pictures in frames of rich hedges adorned with leaves and flowers, its
people are well behaved, orderly and strong, its cattle, large, smooth and
round, its public buildings, substantial and imposing, its houses, neat,
ample and comfortable: everything here exhibits the mark of thoughtful
care. The management of its railroads for the comfort of travellers is
somewhat clumsy; they lack over there our excellent system of checks, but
the protection of life is more complete, and a higher rate of speed is
attained, the railroad crossing for teams are spanned by bridges—no teams
cross on the rails, and hence nobody is run over as in free America.
I stopped but a little while in London, the greatest city, with the greatest
population in the world, a population which is just double what it was 42
years ago.20According to official statistics, the population of London grew from 2,073,000 in 1841 to 4,073,000 when the Douglasses visited there in 1886, making it the most populous city in the world. Mitchell, , 20, 22. It was two and a half hundreds of thousands that flock day
after day to see this wonder of the Wild West.
If any American wants to have a vivid impression of human progress,
and to shudder at the cruelty and barbarism of England a few centuries ago
he has only to go to the Tower of London, and look upon the terrible things
he will see there—torture and death are written all over that ancient prison.
But I must not stop here with England, otherwise I shall hardly reach in my
narrative any one of the other great countries it was my good fortune to visit
during my stay abroad even as the matter now stands, I must postpone to
another occasion remarks upon other features of my tour. On leaving
London we went directly to Paris and spent several weeks there.21The Douglasses arrived in Paris on 20 October 1886. FD Diary, reel 1, frame 11, FD Papers, DLC. We
hardly felt ourselves in a strange land and among strangers till we reached
this wonderful city, the centre of fashion, taste, refinement and art, where
we no longer heard our mother tongue, or saw our English and American
manners. The situation was strange, but not disagreeable. We were in a city
of great historical events, marvelous transitions, startling revolutions,
where human passion has been more powerfully displayed in riot and ruin
that in any other city of modern times. A whole wilderness of horrors are
suggested when its name is mentioned, and yet there is found its quiet,
orderly, majestic and beautiful signs of life and beaming with cheerfulness,
and thronged with seemingly happy people. He spoke humorously of his
meeting with Americans abroad. The Americans over there, he said, are
the most delightful people you can think of when you meet them. When I
would be recognized by one of them they would come up with a cordial,
how are you, how are you, and shake my hand, inquire when I got over and
be most pleasant. If I were to meet one of them on the avenue, he concluded
with a chuckle, they would never know me.