The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-23 00:00:00

TO OUR RZADERS.

SPORTIXO lIMELLIGF.NCIL

A late edition of the Express in published every
evening during the racing season, containing the
results of the day's races.

Tug arrival of the NashvM% bearing the Con-
federate tlag, in Southampton Water, raises some
delicate questions of International Law as it affects
Neutrals. At this stage of the business it must of
course be assumed that the contending parties in
America are each entitled to what are called belli-
gerent rights. In other words, to the eye of foreigners
and Neutrals, there is war between the North and
the South, and each is entitled to all the rights,
and subject to all the obligation% involved in the
fact of mutual hostilities.

Now, it appears that the Nashville, which was
originally a mail steamer, was purchased by the
Confederate Government, and was placed under
the command of Captain Planting, lately a dis-
tinguished officer in the navy of the
United States, but now 'bearing a commission
signed by J rrunios DA VIJI, the en-
tailed President of the Confederate States.
The Nashville is said to be 1,120 tons burden,
and is armed with two long 12-pound rifled can-
non ; whilst her crew consists of 80 men, all whites,
and chiefly Scotch and Irish. Having run the
blockade at Charleston towards the end of October,
and having r►coaled at Bermuda, this vessel, on
Tuesday last, fell in with an American ship, the
Harvey Birch, bound for New York. The Harvey
Birch was ordered to heave to, her captain sad
crew were brought on board the Nashville, and then
Captain Pasoan( having set the empty vessel on
fire, she was burnt to the water's edge. The captain
and mate of the Harvey Birch were treated with
marked courtesy, but the crew were put in irons.
On Thursday, however, upon the arrival of the
Nashville in Southampton, the whole of the cap-
tives were liberated. The Confederate vessel now
lies in Southampton Dock ; and Captain Peaoarrr
declares that her top deck is to be taken off, and
that she is to be fitted as a ship of wet. Such are
the facts connected with the arrival of the Nashville,
and the interesting question is what the conduct
of the British Government ought to be under the

In the first place, it is abundantly clear that
in time of peace the ports of one nation are open
both to the public and private vessels--the men-of-
war and merchantmen—of all other nation.. In
time of peace, therefore, it is usual for both sorts
of vessels belonging to foreigners to come into Bri-
tish ports, and to supply themselves with whatever
may be required. But it is equally clear that
the vessels enter such ports not by right,
but by permission of the Sovereign within
whose territory the port is situate, and
that this permission may be withdrawn.
As Witaaroy says : "If for reasons of state
" the ports of a nation generally, or any particular
" ports, are clo►ed against vessels of war generally,
" or the vessels of any particular nation, notice
" u usually given of such determination ;' but he
proceeds : " If there be no prohibition, the porta
" of a friendly nation are considered as open to
" the public ships of all powers with whom it is
" at peace, and they are supposed to enter such
" porta and to remain in them, whilst allowed to
" remain, under the protection of the government
"of the place." No public act of the British
Government haa been done to modify this state of
things. For the effect of the instructions already
issued by the Foreign-office amounts only to this,
that the armed ships and privateers of both parties
are interdicted from carrying their prizes into any
British port. It is clear, tberetore, that the
Nashville in entering the docks at Southampton
has done nothing whatever in violation of Inter-
national Law. It was, no doubt, competent for
the British Government to interdict the armed
vessels of the North and of the South from enter-
ing a British harbour, but since no prohibition has
been promulgated, the Nashville was justified in
entering any British harbour. Moreover, it appears
that only a short time ago an armed vessel be-
longing to the Federalists not only entered South-
ampton but was refitted there. Under these cir-
cumstances it would bo difficult to deny the
Southern belligerents similar privileges—and
indeed this privilege may be equally claimed by
both parties, until, at least, some new regulations
have been issued.

But the question is, whether it is right that the
present state of things should continue. It seems
to bo admitted that any government has
the right to close its ports to the armed vessels of
any other nation. And if any one were disposed
to entertain a doubt upon this subject, that doubt
ought to be removed by the fact that so late as
Mt both Sweden and Denmark, in laying down
the principle which they should adopt as Neutrals,
formally announced that the armed vessels of
France, Russia, and England, should only be ad-
mitted to certain of their porta. This qualified per
mission of necessity implies the right to withdraw it
altogether, if such a step should seem nocoseiry.
The question, therefore, is, whether the permission
which has hitherto been granted to the American

THE EXP:

belligerents should not be withdrawn. There is pro-
bably no precedent for preventing any belligerent
from putting into a neutral harbour in case of dis-
tress. But it is well established that a belligerent
has no right to station himself in neutral waters
or in a neutral port for the purpose of being the
better prepared to attack the enemy. It is clear,
therefore, that if the Nashville is now in South-
ampton Docks frer the purpose of watching a
favourable opportunity of attacking the Federal
ships in the Channel, she is doing that which is
illegal, and, according to the opinion of Sir W.
Scow, any capture made by her under such circum-
stances would be void. But, further, it is clear
that no belligerent ship in a neutral port has any
right to supply herself with articles which are con-
traband of war, or to be fitted out as an armed
vessel. It would be monstrous indeed if belligerents,
whilst lying in a neutral port, were permitted
to obtain the means of continuing the war. It is
impossible to suppose that Captain PICAORIM, who
holds a commission from JZFFISSON DAVIS, should
be permitted to tit his vessel out as a man-of-war
in any British pork And if any proof were
needed of this proposition, it would be found in
the fact that the principle upon which it rests ins
affirmed by the Americans themselves in 1793, when
France and England attempted to arm and equip
vessels within the territory of the United States
to cruise against each other. It must be observed
moreover that in the present contest there are
special reasons which demand the rigorous appli-
cation of these principles. The Confederates are
almost entirely destitute of ships, and if
their cruisers are permitted to refit in British
harbours they will not only do grievous damage
to the American merchants, but cause great loss
and inconvenience to those of England and France.
Nor should it be forgotten that the danger to
Northern and neutral commerce is aggravated by
the fact that the Northern vessels are almost all
engaged in the attempt to blockade that vast extent
of coast from the mouth of the Potomac to the
mouth of the Mississippi. The consequence is, that
in such a state of things one or two armed vessels
of the South would enjoy special facilities to
spread destruction and havoc amongst that nume-
rous mercantile fleet of Boston and New York
which covers every sea.
As matters now stand, therefore, the Government
of this country would surely do well to consider
whether a solemn declaration of the principles upon
which they intend to act as Neutrals ought not to
be issued. To adopt such a course would be to follow
the precedent set by Denmark, Sweden, and Norway
before the Crimean war. And in making that de-
claration some definite rule ought to be laid down
as to the circumstances under which armed vessels
of either belligerent are henceforth to be allowed
to enter British harbours, and as to the rights which
they are to enjoy whilst they remain in harbour.
It is, no doubt, a serious question, whether the
cruisers of either belligerent ought to be allowed
to enter at all. But at all events, it is clear that,
following the example of Norway and Denmark,
Prirateers should not be tolerated in any British
roadstead, under any pretence, and that no sort
of warlike equipment ought to be furnished is a
British port to any armed vessel of either party.
Perhaps the rule should be made even more
stringent; and if armed vessels of the contend-
ing parties are still to be admitted into British
harbours, it might perhaps be judicious to declare
that under no circumstances shall any man-of-war
henceforth remain in harbour beyond a certain
number of hours.

Tas election of a successor to Sir Jam=
G &Aim' in the representation of Carlisle Is fixed
for Tuesday next. Judging from the latest recon-
naissances, the contest will be one of the closest
ever known in that well-fought borough, and each
party will have to bring up its last man. Mr.
EDMUND Portia, who stands In the Liberal in-
terest, has been very successful in uniting the
various sections of his party. He has, however,
to contend with a peculiar combination of social
influences arrayed on behalf of his opponent, and
to do so under all the disadvantages of a stranger.
Nevertheless if all who profess Liberal principles
in politics stand by him at the poll, his success will
be triumphant. In our notice of this contest on
the 12th, we referred, not without a feeling of
shame, to a disposition apparent in a small num-
ber of the electors usually voting with the Liberal
party to defer to a cry which had been artfully
got up by the Cathedral party at Carlisle, because
of his theological opinions. Not, as • clerical
contemporary has represented us as saying, on
the ground that he is • Protestant dissenter—for it
is desired to alarm susceptible minds not liable to
be prejudiced by that consideration—but precisely
for his shortcomings in the matter of orthodoxy.
To most Englishmen this statement must appear
incredible ; we are nevertheless informed on com-
petent authority that if Mr. Ponca loess his
election it will be because twenty or thirty liberals
are dissatisfied with his private opinions on
the mysterious and recondite questions which
were debated at the Council of Nieces.
We are bound to suppose that the electors who are
thus in danger of being perverted to apostasy from
Liberal principles, have not oonsidered well the
real nature of the course of conduct they are
urged to adopt. It is said that they have strong
theological convictions ; it is on that ground we
appeal to them. They have here an opportunity
of refuting the keen reproach of the Romanist
and the unbeliever, that toleration is the
offspring of indifference. Rather let them
show the world that they have learned the great
lesson of modern society, to reconcile firm and
earnest personal faith with a conscientious respect
for the liberty of their fellows. Mr. Puma does
not seek to become the representative of Carlisle
either to support or to oppose any disputed tenet.
It is difficult so much as to conceive of any set of
eirennistances that can aria() in Parliament in
which it would make the least difference whether
Mr. Portia hold the most developed and moat
metaphysical of the creeds, or &simpler form of faith.
Now if this is true, if it cannot be said that the
objection now considered has a real relation to the
office sought, we must beg the hesitating Liberals of
Carlisle to reflect seriously on the character of the
step they are asked to take. It is one essentially
retrograde. It is • return to a principle from
which modern society has but recently emancipated
itself with infinite difficulty after it had filled state
after state with persecution and hypocrisy. And
the principle, closely examined, proves to be, as
might have been expected, as unchristian as it is
anti-social. Statesmen and political philosophers
who have held all religious opinions to be equally
true and equally false, have, not inconsistently,
asserted • right to impose an external uniformity
of profession. Bet the Christian doctrine which
places belief within the sphere of moral responsi-
bility, of necessity requires the first condition of
that responsibility, which is freedom. In propor-
tion as an enlightened man devotes himself to the
pursuit of truth for its own sake, must he be de-
irons that others may enjoy the same privilege.
Those who attempt to revive social penalties,
, and attach social or political disabilities
Is to opinion, have much to answer for, rejecting as