The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-12 00:00:00

quences of abstaining from the use of her moral in-
, fiuence in stopping this sanguinary war. It is idle
o search for precedents for inaction with "Hist°.
ricus" when inactio❑ commends itself to the instinct
of every thoughtful man by its material advantages;
but there ace moments when the moral responsibili-
ties of nations at the head of civilisation outweigh
material considerations, and such a moment is un-
doubtedly at hand. Where is there on the Conti-
nent of Europe an intelligent human being who
thinks that the thousands of lives which are about
to swell the vast aggregate of the last two years of
slaughter will produce the slightest change in the
present attitude of the two sections? How, then,
will posterity regard England and France if, with-
out a murmur of remonstrance from them, this great
sea of unnecessary blood is poured forth lika water
when it is incontestably in their power to stop it
by a word ?
It is said that because New Orleans and Nash-
ville are in the Federal grasp Southern independ-
ence cannot be recognised by Europe. Was it any
bar to the recognition of American independence
by France that Philadelphia, New York, Charles-
ton, and many other leading cities were in British
possession ? Why sophisticate as to the mode of
recognition ? When, in 1820, Henry Clay was
warmly arguing in the House of Representatives et
Washington in favour of the recognition of the
South American provinces, he was asked to enume-
rate the particular States whose independence he
acknowledged. His answer was remarkable
Suppose the French Minister had asked of Benjamin
Franklin what number of States he represented ? `Thirteen,
so please you,' Franklin would have replied. ' But, Mr.
Franklin, will you tell me if Pennsylvania, whose capital is
in possession of the British, be one of them ? 'What would
Dr. Franklin have answered ?
Two years earlier, speaking in favour of the recog-
nition of the American Republic of these same
Spanish provinces, whose independence Mr. Canning
was eventually the first to acknowledge, Henry
Clay laid down arguments which he little thought
would ever be quoted against his own darling Re-
public:—

" I maintain that an oppressed and dissatisfied people are
authorized, whenever they can, to rise and break their
fetters. This was the great principle of the English revo-
lution. It was the great principle of our own. Vette], it
authority were wanting, expressly supports this right. Our
revolution was mainly directed against the mere theory of
tyranny. We had suffered comparatively but little, we
had in some respects been kindly treated, but our intrepid
and intelligent fathers saw in the usurpation of power to
levy an inconsiderable tax the long train of oppression that
was to follow. They rose, they breasted the storm,
they achieved our freedom. I am no propagandist. I
would not force upon other nations our liberty if they do
not want it. But if an abused and oppressed people will
their freedom, if they seek to establish it, we have right, as
a sovereign Power, to notice the fact, and to act as our in-
terest requires. Moreover, if Spanish America be entitled
to success from the justice of her cause, we have no less
reason to wish her success from the horrible character
which the Royal arms have given to the war. He who has
looked into the history of the conduct of this war is con-
stantly shockei at the revolting scenes it portrays—at the
refusal to treat, on the part of the Royalists, on any terms
with the other side; at the outrage of women, the violation
of flags, the instigation of slaves to rise against their
owners; at acts of wanton and useless barbarity. ,
• • . . I will next inquire what course of policy it
becomes us to adopt. I answer, one of strict and impar-
tial neutrality. It is not necessary for their interests, or
expedient for our own, that we should take part in the
war. It is compatible with this neutrality, it is required by
it, that we should recognise any established Government,
if such there be, in South America. Recognition alone,
without aid, is no just cause of war. There is no com-
mon tribunal among nations to pronounce upon the
sovereignty of a new State. Eash Power does and must
judge for itself. It is an attribute of sovereignty so to
judge. A nation in exerting this incontestable right
takes no part in the war. It gives neither men, ships, nor
money. It merely pronounces that so far as it may be
necessary to institute any relations, or to support any inter-
course with the new Power, that Power is capable of main-
taining those relations and authorising that intercourse. In
our own revolution it was not until after France had given
us aid, and determined to enter into a treaty of alliance
with us, that England declared war against her. Holland,
also, was charged by England with favouring our cause, and
deviating from the line of strict neutrality. And when it
was perceived that she also was about to enter into a treaty
with us England declared war. Even if it were shown that
a haughty and powerful nation like England had made war
on the ground of a mere recognition, the single example
could not alter the public law or shake the strength of a
clear principle. But what has been our uniform practice ?
We have constantly proceeded on the principle that a Go •
vernment de facto is what we can alone notice. So far as
we are concerned the Sovereign de facto is the Sovereign
de jure. Our own revolution stands on the basis of the right
of a people, even on apparently capricious grounds, to change
their rulers. I do not maintain that every immature revolu-
tion, every usurper, before his power is consolidated, is to
be acknowledged by us; but that, as soon as stability and
order are maintained, no matter by whom, we always have
considered, and ought to consider, the actual as the true
Government. Gen. Washington, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Math
son, all, while respectively Presidents, acted on these prin
ciples."