The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-16 00:00:00

ztg,

r,:
y r.

~;_"="~
~~~~

Sun,

LONDON, MONDAY, MAY 16, 1364.

--- - _ _,p. --_- -

It seems as if we were never to hear the last of
the international law as regards America and our-
selves. Time after time the subject is mooted, and
whatever be the length of the discnesion and the
number of the speakers who engage in it; it is only
dropped for a time to be again renewed at a future
time. Mr. BARING
on Friday made himself un-
neceesery officious,
and gamed nothing by his per-
tinacity. It was a piece of great effrontery for him
to have entered upon the task at all, for his charge
was 'unfounded, his demand of the Government
most unreasonable, and his arguments altogether
inconclusive. We should, indeed, have come to a
Pretty pass if we are to forbid the vessels of another
nation to enter our ports. We are not at war with
the Confederate States of America, and it is simply
absurd that we should be asked to issue such an
edict. Seldom has it happened that me many egre-
gious blenders have been made, or contradictory
statements put forth, as in the speeches of those
who advocate the Federal interests in the House,
These wise and upright judges seem to affirm that
the general opinion of the House and the commu-
nity is against one set of belligerents, and that in
a war in which we aro professedly to be neutral.
We should at all times, and in all places, expose the
cline of one and put down the attempts of the other
in any engagement that they may seek to enter
upon. Ttlis is not at all a doctrine that is in
accordance with the English love of fair
play, that has been a time-honoured institution,
and a cherished custom in our land from by.
gone days. When Mr, RARING
pressed his argu-
ment by sz3i.og that the vessel referred to,
the_Georgia, was preying upon the commerce of a
friendly nation, he seemed to ignore the fact that
if we are neutrals in the strife, one of the bellige-
rent parties is no more a friendly power than the
other. The Attorney-general came out very strong
in his reply, and seemed to be at great pains to give
an e:chaustivo answer to this vexed question. The
speech of the honourable and learned gentleman is
doubly welcome on this occasion, from his having

sometime previously been rather disposed to lean to
the other side. He turned the tables on Mr.BARING
by reminding the hon. member that the complaints
were not all on one side, for the Federal agents had
given great cause for offence by their practice of
enlisting British subjects into their army, this being
a violation of the law. It would really seem sur-
prising to notice this inconsistency, if by this time
we were not tolerably accustomed to it temong these
devotees of the North.. Mr. BARING certainly did
not escape unharmed from the contest which he had
so wantonly provoked. His ally, Mr. COBDEN, did
not fare much better either, for Lord R. CECIL'S
speech was a complete exposure of his fallacies, his
prejudices, and his extreme notions. Perhaps the
most effective part of it was the pass2gc, in which
he set off one of his adverslries against the other,
and brought home the subject in a manner that
could not fail to be understood. Mr. COBDEN
made an elaborate statement concerning the bitter-
ness of feeling that would be engendered by the
assistance rendered to the Confederates. "But,"
very forcibly urged the noble lord, " has British aid
been given only on one side ? Have there been
losses and suffering only on one side ?.' He then
proceeded to state that, in one year, there had been
exported no less than twelve millions of permission
caps, and rifles and muskets to the value of five
hundred and fortyssix thousand pounds to the Fede-
ral States, "I cannot pass over the fact," observed
the noble lord, " that the mercantile house which
has been mainly instrumental in conveying this
enormous assistance to the Federals, and effecting
this fearful injury upon the Confederates is the
house of BARING and Co." Thereupon the speaker
very properly said that they had been considering
the feelings of the Federals, but did they think the
Confederates had none also. The fact is, that when
Mr. COBDEN or Mr. BRIGHT get upon the subject
of America it seems impossible for them to preserve
any show of consistency or semblance of modera-
tion. They do not say that we ought to take up
arms to further the interests and assist the progress
of the Federals, but they do imply that we cannot
do toa much for such a purpose. They infer that
all attempts to act with impartiality is unrighteous
in a national sense, and subversive of our best in-
terests in a mercantile capacity. It would be more
straightforward for us to declare war at once in aid
of the North if we think they are so immaculate,
than to go on covertly forming plans and concoct-
ing schemes which are to result in the ruin of those
who may be trusting to our avowed expressions of
neutrality. Such a course as that advo-
cated by Mr. BARING, and vehemently
supported by Mr. COBDEN, is neither honest nor
honourable for cur country to pursue, and far dis-
tant be the day when the policy it sets forth be
made the ruling spirit of our statesmen. The prin-
ciples which are laid down by these apologists for
the Federals are fundamentally wrong, and must
prove most mischievous in their tendenoy and ruin-
ous in their practice. Mr. COBDEN'S great argu-
ment is, that if we do not take heed to our ways we
shall offend this or that Power, and thus our inte-
rests will be affected. We should always be afraid
to do an injury to any State, however weak, but if
we had ever dreaded to offend the most mighty, or
waived our rights to the strongest, England would
never have attained her proud pre-eminence or
gained her mighty influence. It is quite time that
these un-English anti-national doctrines be dis-
avowed in Parliament, and that it should go forth
to the world that they have no root among our race
and are not indigeneons to our soil. Peace at any
price will never be popular among us, and this new
notion of selecting favourites, and naming victims
when wars are going on in other States, will nol
answer in the long run. The American war is a
sad event, and the calamities it has caused will not
be effaced in the time of the present generation,
but there is no need that this untoward circum-
stance should change all our preconceived ideas of
right and wrong as regards belligerent Powers and
the duties of neutrals. By forfti,ing our position
we are disgracing ourselves and injuring others.

The motion for the second reading of Mr. BAINES
Borough Franchise Bill attracted an unusually
large attendance of members to the brief Wednes-
day sitting. A House of 488 members assembled
for the discussion of one of those great questions of
Reform, which have been so long hanging over the
heads of successive statesmen. Although no prac■
tical solution of the difficaliy was arrived at, and
such a result could indeed hardly be hoped in the
present state of the House of Commons, yet the
evening was by no means unirepartant. The prin-
cipal feature of the debate was, of course, the speech
of the Chancellor of the ExchE quer, and we congra-
tulate Mr. BAINES on having gained so valuable an
auxiliary to the side of Reform. In a calm temperate
and statesmanlike address, adorned with all those
powers of argument and oratory for which he is so
remarkable, Mr. GLADSTONE brought forward his
reasons for supporting the measure, and proved so
powerful an advocate, that all the theories of his
opponent, even supported by the eloquence of Mr.
WHITESIDE, could not supply a satisfactory answer.
It is true the measure was not carried, being quietly
disposed of by a motion fcr the previous question,
neither party liking to commit themselves to open
opposition, but great goad was nevertheless effected
by the discussion. In the first place, as we have
said, it is a great thing for the Reform cause
to have gained so valuable an adherent, al-
though we can hardly cherish the hope
expressed by Mr. FORSTER, that the Government
would abandon its present indifferent and hesi-
tating attitude on all questions of Reform after so
open a declaration on the part of one of its most
distinguished members. The members of a Whig
Cabinet, althengh always unanimous on the subject
of office, are by no means so invariably of one mind
on matters of general policy. But whether we
regard the weight of Mr. GLADSTONE'S position,
or the influence naturally exercised by his personal
abilities, we must regard his accession to the cause
as a great gain. The discussion on the bill, too,
brought up all the old debateable points, on which
it was more difficult than ever for the opponents
to hold their ground. The tone and temper of the
present day, and the prominent part which the
leading Consereatives lava taken with regard to
the long-delayed Reform Bill, no longer renders it
possible fer the Opposition members to use the
arg=eras familiar to their forefathers. No man
of any sense, enlightenment, or experience can
anticipatetab an overthrow of Church and State, or
thelis
nt of a Republic in place of a
eshinc
throne, from the extension of the franchise; neither
can he point his moral or conclude his peroration
with ROBESPIERRE and the Reign of Terror. The
working men of England have fairly earned their
right to a share in the representative govern-
ment of the country, and have afforded satis-
factory evidence that they will make good
use of the power when once it is Put into
their hands. They have shown in a high de-
gree that capacity for self- control and self-
government which are among the distinguishing
characteristics of Englishmen, while their love of
order and fair play are a continual marvel to
foreigners. The wildest and most turbulent spirits
are usually to be found in great cities, and it is
certainly among large masses of townsmen that
mob orators and Chartists exercise most power.