The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1861

Earl Russell's Dispatch to Russia.

The London Gazette of last night contains the follow-
ing :

FOREIGN-OFFICE, SEPT. 11.

The following dispatch has been addressed by Earl Rus-
sell to Lord Napier, her Majesty's ambassador at St. Peter-
sburg :

" Foreign-offioe, Aug. 11, 1863.
My Lord,-- On the 18th of last month Baron Brunnow
communicated to me a dispatch which he had received the
evening before from Prince Gortechakoff.
This dispatch, of which I enclose a copy,* is far from
being a satisfactory answer to the representation which, in
concert with France and Austria, her Majesty's Govern-

ment addressed to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg.
The dispatch begins, indeed, by stating that " the Im-
perial
Cabinet admits the principle that every power sign-
ing a treaty has a right to interpret its sense from its own
point of view, provided that the interpretation remains
within the limits of the meaning that it is possible to put
upon it according to the text itself." Prince Gortschakoff
adds, " In virtue of this principle the Imperial Cabinet does
not dispute this right on the part of any one of the eight
powers which have concurred in the General Act of Vienna

Of 1815."
Prince Gortachakoff, however, departing widely from the
question of the interpretation of the treaty of Vienna, pro-
ceeds to describe the continuance of the insurrection in
Poland to the moral and material assistance which it re-
ceives from without admits vaguely the six points ; rejects
the proposed suspension of hostilities ; refuses to accept a
conference of the eight powers who signed the treaty; and,
finally, declares that the re-establishment of order must
precede the serious application of any measures destined for
the pacification of Poland.
Her Majesty's Government will now proceed to examine
calmly the principal topics of Prince Gortschakoff's reply
to the considerations brought before him in my dispatch.
Prince Gortschakoff, while he admits that confidence on
the part of the governed, and the ascendancy of law over
arbitrary power, must bo the foundation of order and sta-
Jility, adds that the indispensable corollary to these prin-
ciples is respect for authority. But the Russian Cabinet
cannot be ignorant that clemency and conciliation are often
more effective in establishing respect for authority than
material force. It would be a lamentable error to seek to
restore that respect by force of arms alone, without the
addition of some adequate security for the political and re-
ligious rights of the subjects of the King of Poland. Such
security the proposals of the three powers held out to Rus-
sia and to Poland alike.

It has pleased the Cabinet of St. Petersburg not to avail
itself of this mode of restoring respect for authority.
2. Prince Gortschakoff affirms—and this view is the

theme of the beginning and end of his despatch—that the
re-establishment of order in Poland is dependent upon a
condition to which he had called the attention of the Go-
vernment of her Britannic Majesty, "and which is not only
unfulfilled, but is not even alluded to in the despatch of
Lord Russell ; we refer to the material assistance and
moral encouragements obtained from abroad by the insur-
gents."
Her Majesty's Government would have been glad to have
avoided this topic, and, instead of commenting on the past,
to refer only to healing measures for the future.
But, thus compelled by Prince Gortschakoff's reference
to allude to the subject, her Majesty's Government have
no hesitation in declaring their conviction that the prin-
cipal obstacle to the re-establishment of order in Poland is
not the assistance obtained by the insurgents from abroad,
but the conduce of the Russian Government itself.
The Empress Catherine in 1772 promised to the Poles the
maintenance of their religion. The Emperor Alexander I.
in 1815 promised to the Poles national representation and
national administration.

These promises have not been fulfilled. During many
years the religion of the Poles was attacked, and to the pre-
sent hour they are not in possession of the political rights
assured to them by the treaty of 1815, and the constitution
of the same year.
The violation of these solemn engagements on the part
of the Russian Government produced disaffection, and the
sudden invasion of the homes of Warsaw, in a night of
January last, was the immediate cause of the present insur-
rection.

Unless the general feeling in Poland had been estranged
from Russia the moral and material assistance afforded from
abroad would have availed the insurgents little. It is true,
however, that lively sympathy has been excited in Europe
in favour of the Poles, In every considerable state where
there exists a national representation—in England, in
France, in Austria, in Prussia, in Italy, in Spain, Portugal,
in Sweden, in Denmark—that sympathy has been mani•
fested. Wherever there is a national administration, the
administration has shared, though with prudence and re-
serve in expression, the feelings of the legislature and the
nation.

Russia ought to take into account these sympathies, and
profit by the lesson which they teach.
3. Prince Gortechakoff lays much stress on the fact,
which cannot be denied, that " the insurgents demand
neither an amnesty, nor an autonomy, nor a representation
more or less complete."
But it would be a mistake to suppose that in cases of this
kind there are only two parties, viz., the Government occu-
pied in suppressing the insurrection, and the leaders of the
insurgents busy in fomenting and extending it. Besides
these parties there is always in such cases a large floating
mass who would be quite contented to see persons and pro-
perty secure under a just and beneficent administration.
The confidence of this great mass has not been obtained,
and their continued inaction can hardly bo depended upon.
Her Majesty's Government must again represent the ex-
treme urgency of attempting at once the work of concilia-
tion which is so necessary for the general interest.
In profiting by the loyal and disinterested assistance
which is offered her by Austria, France, and Great Britain,
the Court of Russia secures to herself the most powerful
means towards making ideas of moderation prevail in
Poland, and thus laying the foundations of permanent
peace.

4. In referring to the treaty of Vienna Prince Gortscha-
koff says—" We should not be so far from the truth if we
affirmed that the let article of the treaty of Vienna was pre-
pared by and directly emanated from his Majesty the Em-
peror Alexander I.
Her Majesty's Government readily admit the probability
of this supposition. In 1815 Great Britain, Austria, France,
and Prussia would have preferred to the arrangement finally
made a restoration of the ancient kingdom of Poland es it
existed prior to the first partition of 1772, or even the estab-
lishment of a new independent kingdom of Poland, with the
same limits as the present kingdom.
The great army which the Emperor Alexander then had
in Poland, the important services which Russia had ren-
dered to the alliance, and, above all, a fear of the renewal of
war in Europe, combined to make Great Britain, Austria,
and Prussia accept the arrangement proposed by the Em-
peror Alexander, although it was, in their eyes, of the three
arrangements in contemplation, the one least likely to pro-
duce permanent peace and security in Europe.
But the more her Majesty's Government see in the deci-
sion adopted the prevailing influence of Russia, the more
they are impressed with the conviction that the Emperor of
Russia ought to be, of all Sovereigns, the moat desirous to
observe the conditions of that arrangement.
It would not be open to Russia to enjoy all the benefits
of a large addition to her dominions, and to repudiate the
terms of the instrument upon which her tenure depends,
In stating these terms Prince Gortschakoff says that the
only stipulation which can have made it appear doubtful
that the Emperor of Russia possessed the kingdom of Po-
land by the same title as that by which he holds his other
possessions, the only one which could make his rights de-
pendent upon any condition whatever, is contained in two
passages which ho proceeds to quote.
But there is another passage which ho does not quote.
It is found in the beginning of the First Article, and
says
" The duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of the pro-
vinces and districts which are otherwise disposed of by the
following articles, is united to the Russian empire, to
which it shall be irrevocably attached by its constitution,
and be possessed by his Majesty the Emperor of all the
Russias, his heirs and successors in perpetuity."
Were not a national representation intended by this arti-
cle it would have been sufficient to say "to which it shall
be irrevocably attached," without any mention of a consti-
tution.
It is therefore evident that the constitution is the link by
which Poland was connected with Russia. It is important
to know what this constitution was which united Poland
and Russia. It was not prescribed by the treaty, it was not
promulgated by the European Powers, its construction was
left entirely to the Emperor Alexander ; but nevertheless,
when once promulgated, it must be taken to be the consti-
tution meant by the framers of the treaty of Vienna.
It was for this reason that her Majesty's Government
proposed as the second of the six points laid before the Go-
vernment of Russia, "national representation with powers
similar to those which are fixed by the charter of tho 15-27th
November, 1815."
5. Passing to the specific propositions of her Majesty's
Government, Prince Gortschakoff says in regard to the six
points, that the greater part of the measures which were
pointed out by the three Powers "have already been either
decreed or prepared on the initiative of our august master."
Towards the end of the despatch an allusion is made to
"the measures which his Majesty's adheres to, both in the
germs already laid down, and in the development of them
which he has allowed to be foreseen."
control, or of national administration, gives some hope that
eitlh'ehrisopassage,
ntthiloruegphrefsaer fromntati beingonssi a
efildecfiaeniiotues"mseuranasncoef
the Emperor Alexander will ultimately listen to the inspi-
ration of his own benevolent disposition and to the counsels
of Europe.
eTt
iheee proposalEmperor'sofa
faithful
hostilitieser army,
yto th
is rejected ee t cd
peaceable"in
ju
majority of Poles, and to Russia, on whom these agitations
impose painful sacrifices."
The proposal of a conference of the powers who signed
the treaty of Vienna is rejected, and with it the prospect
of an immediate and friendly concert.
In the place of this fair and equitaMo proposal, the

- - -
* See "Correspondence respecting the insurrection in
Poland. 1863," part IV,7 presented to Vorliament, July
20, 1863,

sian cabinet suggests that the three powers who proposed
the separate treaties between Austria and Russia, and
Prussia and Russia, previously to the general treaty of
Vienna, should meet together, and that France and Great
Britain should be afterwards informed of the result of
their deliberations.
There are two reasons, either of which would be suffi-
cient to condemn this suggestion:-
1. The treaties in question, taken apart from the pro-
visions inserted in the general treaty of Vienna, have
reference only to material objects--the use of the banks of
rivers, the regulations for towing paths, the free passage
of merchandise from one province to another, and such
other matters of convenience and of commerce. No
political developments or details are contained in them.
2. It is obvious that such a conference would place
Austria in a false position, and be inconsistent with her
relations to France and Great Britain.

His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, therefore, with a
proper sense of his own dignity, has at once rejected the
Russian proposal.

In communicating their views to Prince G-ortschakoff, it
remains to her Majesty's Government to discharge an im-
perative duty.
It is to call his excellency's most serious attention to the
gravity of the situation, and the responsibility which it im•
poses upon Russia.

Great Britain, Austria, and Franco have pointed out the
urgent necessity of putting an end to a deplorable state of
things which is full of danger to Europe. They have at
the same time indicated the means which, in their opinion,
ought to be employed to arrive at this termination, and
they have offered their co-operation in order to attain it
with more certainty.
If Russia does not perform all that depends upon her to
further the moderate and conciliatory views of the three
powers, if she does not enter upon the path which is
opened to her by friendly counsels, she makes herself
responsible for the serious consequences which the pro-
longation of the troubles of Poland may produce.
I am, &e.,
(Signed) RUSSELL.

plan involves a very grave departure from the true princi-
ples of relief administrat'on.
" 6. Contracts for public or private works can only be
safely entered into by boards or committees charged with
the execution of such works, apart from the question of
relief of indigence. Such boards or committees of public
works reduce the sum of indigence in the same way as any
private capitalists may do by such works as they undertake.
But they assume no obligations to find employment, and
they strengthen the relations between capital and labour by
increasing the employment of capital and the demand for
labour. These functions, though they indirectly relieve in-
digence, are not to be in any degree confounded with the
functions of boards or committees, whose primary duty is to
relieve indigence so as to sustain health.
" Adopted and printed by order of the Central Executive
Committee.

" DERBY, Chairman:
" JOHN Wu. M'CLURE, Hon. Sec."

Grants were made from the General Relief Clothing
Fund, including the following :—Ashton, £450 ; Staly-
bridge,L4so; liukinfield, £300; Tintwistle £100; Heywood,
£300; Farrington, £lOO ; Blackburn, £4OO ; Bacup, £2OO ;
Oldham, £BOO ; Whitworth and Facit, £l5O ; Royton,
£2OO ; Broadbottcm and Cbarlesworth, £lOO ; Hyde, £B5O
Crompton, £100; Stockport, £1,250.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The public will certainly have learnt
with some satisfaction that the two ironclad steamers

now approaching completion in the Mersey will not
be allowed to leave that river until something more
is known of their ownership and destination. As
Lord Russell acknowledged a short time ago the
inability of Government; in default of evidence, to

venture upon this step, we may presume that the
grounds for interference have since acquired
strength, and, indeed, although notoriety is no war-
rant for conviction, it was hardly possible to over-
look the universal impression, whether justifiable or
otherwise, in the case before us. Whatever might be
the complicity or the innocence of this party or that,
it was every where accepted as beyond reasonable
doubt that these two vessels were ultimately des-
tined for the service of lth.) Confederate States,

and the precedents of the Alabama and the Florida
enabled us to conjecture the future stages of their
equipment and the uses to which they would be
turned. The law of the case is certainly obscure,
and its application is perhaps not likely to be facili-
tated by much clearness in the facts, but the rea-
son of the question can be readily apprehended.
It is not denied that a neutral may sell munitions
of war, ships included, to a belligerent. inter-
national law deals considerately with neutrals, and
limits the extent to which their customary trade
may be curtailed in aid of belligerents and their
operations. It is not our fault that the Americans

are fighting each other, and our share in the suffer-
ing produced by the war ought to be as light as
possible. We, therefore, or any other neutrals, are
entitled to pursue our ordinary business in all its
branches, provided only that we do not violate the
principles of neutrality by refusing to one bellige-
rent what we grant to the other. If the goods in
which we deal are contraband of war they are liable
to confiscation, but oven that trade, subject to the
risk, is perfectly lawful. According to these doc-
trines, it is undoubtedly competent to any British
shipbuilder to build a ship and sell it, as another
merchant might sell a battery of fieldpieces or a
cargo of gunpowder. Even if theship be manifestly
and exclusively designed for purposes of war the
traneaction is not necessarily unlawful, for the con-
struction of ships of war for foreign States is noto-
riously a branch of our customary trade. We can
thus, without much difficulty, see our way to both
the construction and sale of such vessels ; but then
comes another point of the greatest importance—
their delivery. If a ship of war thus built and dis-
posed of were delivered at the belligerent port, as
other munitions of war might be delivered, we do not
see that the transaction could be impeached. Sup-
posing, for the sake of argument, that these steam
rams in the Mersey were avowedly destined for deli-
very at Charleston, there to be equipped and received
into the service of the Confederate Government,
the obligation of stopping them would then lie with
the Federals, who would be entitled to capture
them on their way, just as the Confederates, if
they were strong enough, might capture a siege
train on its way to New York. Under such condi-
tions, there would certainly be no difference between
the sale of a steam-frigate and the sale of a park of
artillery; bat such are not the conditions to be as-
sumed. The Alabama was not delivered at a Southern
port, nor are we sure, indeed, that she has ever en-
tered one. The Florida has run in and out of
Charleston, but she only entered those waters as a
ship already in coin mission, fully manned, and fully
equipped. Where and how was this equipment
effeeted ? If it was not effected—as it certainly was
not —in a Confederate port, it must apparently have
been effected in or from some neutral port, and that
deprives the adventure of its lawfulness. A shipbuilder
may not sell a ship ready armed, for that is not a cus-
tomary trade, and no such sales are effected. But if
the purchaser, after receiving the empty hull, goes
elsewhere to purchase guns and elsewhere to obtain
men and stores, then the transaction in the aggregate
amounts to the equipment and despatch of a hostile
expedition from a neutral territory. To put the case
clearly, let it be supposed that we were ourselves at
war with the Federals, and that our Government,
being pressed for ships, ordered the construction of
vessels in private yards, as was actually done during
the was with Russia. Suppose, also, that in the
urgency of our need guns were purchased from pri-
vate manufacturers, and stores of all descriptions
obtained in like manner. All this would be per-
fectly natural, but all this, and nothing less, is what
probably happened in the case of the Confederate
cruisers, thougn we are notat war but at peace with
the Federal States.. The Confederate Government or
its representatives did not simply buy ships in this
country for transport to a Confederate port. These
agents bought ships and guns and stores, and
having thus got all the elements of a man-of-war
together, sent the vessel to sea on her business fully
equipped. But we ourselves could have done no
more than this if we had been the belligerents, and
consequently our ports or our territory would have
been used by a belligerent for purposes of war.
When the Alabama commenced her attacks on the
enemy's shipping from what port had she sailed ?
That is the important question. It had been
answered by the assertion that she never sailed, as
a fully-equipped man-of-war, from any port at all;
that when she left the Mersey she was unequipped,
and therefare innocent ; thatishe borrowed her guns
and her men from a Confederate consort at sea, and.
supplied herself afterwards with stores in a justifi-
able manner. Bat would an adventure so planned
be lawful in its inception ? Would it, for instance,
be allowable for a British merchant to build a ship
of war for delivery, with all but her guns and stores,
to the Alabama or the Florida, lying conveniently
off to receive her, and ready to put men and guns
on board directly ? We have more than once
remarked that the transactions in question have
been conducted in such a manner as to indicate
a consciousness of trespass in some direction or
other. The law is loose enough, and there is
great latitude reserved for genuine commercial
adventure, but this recognized license has never
been pleaded. No shipbuilder has openly avowed
that he was building a ship for a belligerent
Power, but that he intended to confine himself
throughout the transaction to the limits imposed
by the law. The vessels have been hula without
any admission of their real destination, and
despatched covertly or under pretext. When,
therefore, we find two more vessels of a descrip-
tion apparently similar preparing to leave one of
our ports, there can be nothing unreasonable in re-
quiring some certificate of character or destination
before we allow them to depart. Of two things one
—either the despatch of the Alabama was perfectly
lawful and need not have been disguised, or the
despatch of a vessel reasonably suspected of being
another Alabama may be justly prevented. Which
of these assumptions may be the sound one we can-
not take upon ourselves to say. The law admits of
so many evasions, and the facts of the case have
been so imperfectly ascertained, that we could not
pretend to forecast the issue of a trial. In favour
of the step on which Ministers have at length
decided there are many considerations, It is not
affirmed on any side that the despatch of the two
iron-clads which have acquired so equivocal a re-
putation wouid be really allowable if their
character is such as is imputed, while no suffi-
cient evidence has been tendered to rebut this
imputation. They are war vessels, and war vessels
of exactly the kind which would probably be be-
spoken by the Canfederates for the purposes alleged.
They must have a purpose of some kind, and no
other purpose appears to have been conclusively
shown. These being the grounds of suspicion, it
is argued by some, and felt by almost all, that the
departure of the vessels should not be permitted
without some effort either to fix their alleged cha-
racter or to clear them of suspicion altogether.
Thew may be obscurity about the law, but there is
none about the reason of the case. We should not
submit, if we were belligerents, to the despatch of
cruiser after cruiser from a neutral port to make
war upon our vessels. We believe that, except for
some evasion. EMI proceedings could really be proved
unlawful. We cannot but suspect that such service is
the service for which these steamers are destined, and
we therefore ask that these suspicions may be dis-
pelled before we lot the vessels go.
HERALD.—The passionate anxiety of the Federal
Government and its agents in this country, English
and American, td prevent, by all means and at all
hazards, the building of ships in British ports,
which may eventually find their way into the hands
of the Confederates, is a little surprising. We can
quite understand that the North 51101114 be very