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

angry; we should not be utterly astonished if its
natural resentment and its ignorance of interna-
tional law were to lead to acts of unjustifiable re-
taliation ; but we do not quite understand the
desperate energy with which the Federalist's labour
to prevent these ships from getting to sea. They
have the right to seize them as contraband of war
as soon as they are beyond British jurisdiction ; and
a ship seized on suspicion of being built as a con-
sort of the dreaded Alabama would meet with little
justice from a Northern prize-court and little pro-
tection from the British Government. These prizes,
moreover, would be of immense value to the Yan-
kees, for they are about the only ships that would
have at once the speed to catch the Alabama and
the strength to fight her. But this is the only
means of security which the Yankees have not
tried. They have bullied the British Government,
and tried to mislead the British people ; they have
appealed by desperate menaces to the fears of Lord
Russell, and by falsifications of history to the graa.
titude of the country ; they have even brought
before a court of law a case utterly devoid of
legal foundation, and supported it before an
English jury by the evidence of a set of scoundrels
such as are seldom seen in the dock, and rarely
indeed in the witness-box; and now they have
busied themselves in trying, by threats, coaxing,
teasing, expostulation, downright bullying, to force
the Foreign Secretary to do for them, in violation
of law, what the law refuses. We are more scan-
dalised than surprised to learn that they have suc-
ceeded. We never believed in the much-vaunted
spirit of Lord Russell. It is quite in keeping with
the character of Mr. Christie's patron that he should
obey the bidding of Mr. Adams ; and the hero of
the Vienna Conference is just the man to sacrifice
the honour and interests of his country to his awe
of Mr. Seward. The aspect of his conduct as a
matter of foreign policy we have discussed already.
It deserves a little consideration in another aspect,
as a scandalous violation of the law of England, a
gross misuse of power, a usurpation of illegal autho•
rity on the part of the Executive Government. If
Lord Russell had good cause to believe that there
was an intention to break the law, and that he had
evidence of that intention, he would of course be
quite justified in detaining the vessels in Mr. Laird's
yard until their guilt or innocence had been estab-
lished before the proper tribunal. But he has con-
fessed publicly that he has no evidence whatever :
he is well aware that, the real bearing of the law
having been shown by the case of the Alexandra,
every care will have been taken to comply with its
requirements; he has not the faintest hope of ob-
taining the condemnation of these ships; and he has
detained them only that he may, by their illegal
detention, establish a claim on the gratitude of the
Yankees, and give them the -advantage of some
months' time wherein to do their worst, before these
vessels can take part in the war. This is an act of
vexation and tyranny, committed under shelter of
that principle of our constitution which allows an
extraordinary discretion to the Executive, subject
to the ordinary penalties of the law if that discre-
tion be unwisely or unjustly exercised. The law
is clear. The Executive, under the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act, is entrusted with the power of a police-
man to arrest suspected criminals. In this case it
arrests without a decent pretence of suspicion, not
because the law is likely to be violated, bat because
something is likely to be done which will be very
disagreeable to its friends. It is as if, in a close
contest, a Yellow constable were to arrest half a
dozen Blue voters on the pretence that they medi-
tated an assault on the poll-clerk, and keep them in
custody till the election was over. They would
have their 'action for false imprisonment, and would
recover swinging damages; but the election would
be lost, So Mr. Laird, or the party who has
ordered the ships, may recover damages; but the
object of Lord Russell has been gained, and the
service lie proposes to render to the Northerners
has taken effect. There is a law to forbid the
sailing of belligerent expeditions from British ports.
But there is no law, and there ought not to be, and
the Legislature never meant that there should be,
any law to prevent British shipbuilders from dealing
in ships of war. The discussion, independently of
the decision, in the case of the Alexandra, made it
quite clear what British subjects might do ; and
this of course is what Mr. Laird has done. He will
not arm or fit out or equip a ship of war, and sell
her to the Confederates to make war in the United
States. Either his ships will not go forth
" equipped" within the meaning of the act; or they
will go not directly to the Confederate service, but
to soma neutral port as the property of the subject
of some other neutral power. In neither case will
there have been either violation or evasion of our
law ; for that law was not meant to fetter trade, or
to assist a belligerent who wants arms and ammu-
nition at the expense of a belligerent who wanes
men of war. If such bad been its meaninee We
should have been bound as neutrals to "repeal it
when war broke out; just as when Prance made
war on Spain, wo altered our orders in Council as
to the export of arms, in order to put both parties
on an equal footing. It is beyond doubt that all
concerned in the building of the vessels now in
question have kept within the law; Lord Russell
has broken the law in order to use his position as a
Minister of Queen Victoria for the advantage and
benefit of a foreign Government, and in doing so he
hes been guilty of something not falling very far
short of till overt act of treason. He will escare
with impunity, but certainly not without i fP.my.
"But," say some timid and shortsighted.
peace-
mongers, "it is very hard that we shoraldrun the
risk of war merely that Mr. Laird may have his
profit as a shipbuilder." So it is very hard that we
should have to run the risk of war to protect Bri-
tish subjects in China or Chili, Mexico or Japan,
from illegal violence; why do they not come home
and abandon the profits of their trade to citizens of
more courageous or less peaceable countries ? While
Mr. Laird:acts within the law we are bound by our
own honour to defend him, and refrain from inter-
fering with him ; and if we once allow the argu-
ment to mail, that we should rather force our
subjects to abandon their rights than fight to main-
tain them, wo shall never enjoy any trade which is,
disagreeable to any of our rivals. This argue'
would bid us cease to sell arms and muni' t eat
,ons of
war to one belligerent for fear of war wits the other,
for if it were thought that such a threat would avail
the Federal Government would 4.!:nreaten us with
war if we supplied rifles Confederates,. and
France would follow the P•
she
found
the
i!eie_to the Mpelxeiciafnws,e evrenittuursesdi a
intiof sell contraband good,. rn
unjustifiable
declarationallow the slightestf weight
Birmingham,
we
e.; making purchases of arms.
so would be to forfeit for ever onr claim o
ta
or ;
respectto do
to fear of an
from foreign nations, and to place ourselves at the
mercy of any power that might think fit to play the
bully. If we have to fight it will not be for ship-
builders' profits, but for national honour ; not be-
cause Mr. Laird has sold an Alabama, but because
Lord Russell has allowed the Yankees to imagine
that the sale of Alabamas is to be prevented by
bluster and menace.