The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-25 00:00:00

vessels which somehow or other have contrived to
elude the sagacity and valour of the North for such
an unconscionable period. But the intelligent
foreigner being of course unacquainted with the
refinements of diplomatic courtesy or the wholesome
dread which timid JOHN , Buzz entertains for the
terrible Yankee, might happen to suggest that both
sides should be treated alike in a case of strict
neutrality. He might say that if we could not
build ships for the South, neither should the North
be allowed to obtain arms and ammunition; that if
the existence of the one party were not even cffi-
cially recognised, spies and informers should not be
tolerated on behalf of the other. He might even
go so far as to say that before our Government
granted the extraordinary requests of the North,
they might demand fair treatment for our own
merchant vessels trading to neutral ports ; they
might exact from the American Government the
observance of those laws of nations which they
themselves laid down when their own in-
terests were concerned. They might suggest
that the watching and dogging of our
merchant vessels is insulting to the nation,
injurious to trade, and opposed to all prin-
ciples of common sense or justice. If a vessel is
bound with a neutral cargo to Matamoras or Nassau,
what right has a Federal Commander to arrest her
progress, on the supposition that she is afterwards
going to a Southern poi t ? As for the complaints
of the frequent running of the blockade by English
ships, that is only what any man of common sense
might have expected from the attempt to stop a
large and flourishing trade by a totally inefficient
force. The effort was worthy of Northern bravado
—the result is worthy of Federal " strategic" ability.
But it is not our affair if the Americans choose to
call their blunders, misfortunes, and to abuse us for
the consequences of their own incapacity. What
does concern us is their arrogant assumption of a
right to direct and conduct. Let them be thankful
that we have stood aside in the contest, and not
decided the fate of their cherished Union by open
interference. Let them be grateful for any soil of
impartiality, and not question the character of our
neutrality too closely. Who are they that their
tale-bearers should be recognised agents, and their
intelligence tolerated by any English Minister.
Let them first account for the Adela and the Peter-
hoff, for Mr. ADAMS'S guarantee, and the increased
rate of insurance on our American merchantmen.
If this system of organised impertinence and reck-
less disregard of justice be pursued much further,
it will rouse England into doing an act of greater
kindness to America than she has yet shown, by
stepping forward in the breach and declaring that
she will no longer be a party to the conflict by
tolerating this fratricidal strife between the two
great people 3 who once formed the United States.

We are glad to see that the House of Commons
has declined to reverse its previous decisions on the
subject of Hampstead Heath. The Leases and Sales
of Settled Estates Act Amendment Bill came on for
the second reading last night, but was rejected by
a majority of more than three to one. It professed,
indeed, to protect the interests of the public, and to
secure them the enjoyment of Hampstead Heath ;
but hon. members saw reason to suspect the disin-
terestedness of the arrangement, and decided ac-
cordingly. The bill had, it was said, two objects;
first, to give Sir THOMAS MARYON WILSON, and
other persons similarly situated, a right to apply to
the Chancery Court for powers to lease and sell
portions of their estates, of which right they wore
deprived by the general Act of 1856; and, secondly,
the preservation of public rights over Hampstead
Heath and other open grounds. We do not wonder
that the House found it difficult to reconcile these
two objects, which certainly appear to neutralise
one another. If it be true, as Sir MORTON PETO
and some other members asserted, that Sir THOMAS
WILSON has been unfairly treated with respect to
his other property, there are probably some means
of repairing the special injustice without granting
such a dangerous permission as that given by this
bill. It was significantly remarked by Mr. DoUL-
TON, that the Metropolitan Board, which might be
regarded as the advocate of the public wishes and
interests, bad petitioned against this bill, the prac-
tical effect of which in their estimation would be to
destroy Hampstead Heath. If the grounds in the
neighbourhood now open were enclosed the general
enjoyment would be very much interfered with,
and the precedent would, undoubtedly, be a dan-
gerous one. Are there no means by which all these
vexed questions can be finally disposed of ; which
can ensure the undisturbed freedom of Hampstead
Heath, Tooting Common, and all such places, to
the toil-worn bees of our busy hive ? It is time
that some such scheme were devised, that either
by Act of Parliament, or public grant, or general
subscription, these fidgetty owners were bought
out, and requested to transfer their territorial rights
to some of the many districts where they may
build as far and wide as they please without
trenching on a popular privilege of long standing
and unquestionable benefit.