The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-10 00:00:00

fies our allowing the eale of ships of wir by a British
shipbuilder to the Confederate Government, may
be answered on his own ground thus :-1. The
Br•itieh shipbuilder was not before the war accus-
tomed to build ships of war for the Confederate
Government. 2. The British shipbuilder was not
secustorned to build ships of war for powers actu-
ally belligerent. 3. The allowing or forbidding the
exportation of any article is equally an act of sove-
reignty, and the operation of allowing the exporta-
tion of ships of war for both the present belligerents
is not equal ; it is very unequal. The Federals can
build war ships for themselves; the Confederates
cannot build ; the Federate have a commercial navy
to be ravaged; the Confederates have none.
But, further, it may be questioned whether it is
to be considered as settled and now binding inter-
national law that, on the breaking out of a war a
neutral State may freely sell or export to belligerents
among its wonted productions articles contraband of
war, subject only to capture at sea. It is true
tnat Vattel and Kent, the Supreme Court of the
United States, and statesmen in the present war,
have said more or less authoritatively, that the
sale and exportation of munitions of war to bellige-
rents (both belligerents) is not unneutral. It is
true that neutrals have often sold arms to one
belligerent and have justified it, and that the other
belligerent has submitted. But precedents made
by politicians in international transactions, though
always to be considered,:are comparatively of slight
authority, for they are precedents made not by im-
partial judges, but by interested parties, and judicial
precedents in such matters are apt to be founded on
slender experience, and, moreover, as they grow old
to lag behind the world. International law is ever
making, and at the present time, when it is un-
doubtedly undergoing great changes, when the
truely pacific rights of neutrals are enlarged and
rigorously guarded, it becomes a part of the general
international policy to exclude as far as possible
neutrals from those commercial transactions which
are begotten by the war, and directly minister tc
the war operations of either belligerent. If either
North or South, themselves abstaining from taking
arms from England, had remonstrated with us for
suffering the export of arms to the other bellige-
rent, and remonstrance not prevailing had declared
war with us, persons not gunmakers might think
we should not have been fighting for a good cause.
The same imams may now wish that her Majesty
had exercised her statutory right of forbidding by
order in Council the export of arms, &c., to either
Federals or Confederates (16 and 17 Victoria, cap.
107, sec. 150). This right was exercised before the
breaking out of the Russian war.
But in any case there are reasons, which others
have pointed out, for drawing a distinction between
selling a ship of war to a belligerent and exporting
arms.

I may add that one way of reading the 7th section
of the Foreign Enlistment Act (not, however, a
sound one in my opinion) is that to equip without
license a ship with intent that it shall be employed
in the service of a foreign State " as a transport or
storeship," whatever that may mean, is a misde-
meanour, whether that State be at war or not.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Temple, Sept. 8. VERNON LUSHINGTON.