The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-08 00:00:00

THERMOMETER.

Highest since Noon yesterday
Lowest during the night
This day at Noon,. „ . .. 63
Wind—S.E. ; light, with fine weather.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tale DAY.—Morning, 4h. 26m.—Afternoon, 4h. 50m.
To-gorolow.-Morning, 512. 16m.—Afternoon, sh. 40m.

• ;.*—e
(Zit
466 4e..,44;4,4Li„
krk". „Dna

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 8, 1863.

A very able correspondent of our chief morning
contemporary has this day in that journal
as sensible an argument as we have anywhere
yet seen in regard to the wretched, flagrant
case of the Peterhof'. M. Y.'s letter to the
Times, in fact, takes the whole question involved
in that seizure into consideration. He (the writer)
discusses it, moreover, quite coolly and dis-

passionately, in its relation to international law as
affecting blockade. He observes midway in his
communication—almost it seems to us, however,
superfluously, for the fact immediately hereafter
mentioned in his own words may be said to
be tolerably self - evident : " The study
of international law more especially as
applied to blockades has been for years the
duty and occupation of the writer of this
letter." Among the conclusions arrived at by him
as the result of this mature and deliberate study of
international law, particularly as applied to blockade,
is the conviction that, more frequently than any
other law, it is both ill-defined and more liable to
forced interpretations_ It is irksome, in its ope-
ration, to neutrals. It is unsatisfactory to belli-
gerents, by reason of the restrictions inevitable from
its application. "If," as this anonymous juriscon-
suit very judiciously remarks, "the evils that the
usages of blockade inflict were such as to be re-
sented before steam navigation became general,
they are much aggravated now." Not a doubt of it.
And, in effect—that it should be so, was just simply
inevitable. Would that our responsible administra-
tors themselves could sooner have seen, have rea-
lised and have acted upon, the reflections that imme-
diately afterwards follow—viz,, that "Because
some doubtful points will unavoidably give rise
to disputes, it behoves us to be the more careful
in strictly defining and holding to such rules as
are indisputable, and not allow them to be lost
sight of by any lathes of our own." Too late
is any such saving reflection as that, however, in
regard to this unfortunate case of the Peterhoff.
The /aches cannot be avoided now in that instance !
Have we not blundered, in point of fact, through
the inopportune admission of her MAJESTY'S Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs ? Where, in
that most indiscreet letter of his, the noble
Earl would really seem to admit that, under
certain circumstances, a Neutral Vessel bound for a
Neutral Port may be regarded as liable to temporary
capture—that is to say, because of some excusable
mistake on the part of the interfering belli -
gerent. When, in reality, international maritime
law admits of no such contingency whatever. Under
no conceivable circumstance can a neutral ship, as
the writer whose argument has just now recalled
our attention to the case of the Peterhoff observes,
most advisedly and unanswerably—under no circum-
stance in any way conceivable, can a neutral ship
on her passage from one neutral seaport to another
be legally captured and condemned. Yet as he
adds Earl RUSSELL'S injudicious letter in regard to
the Peterhoff does really bear the construction (he
is ready to admit, perhaps the forced construction)
" that such vessel, on a legitimate voyage, is liable
to temporary capture—certainly to detention and
search—by the belligerent, like any other vessel
suspected, justly or not, of intending to break the
blockade established by that belligerent." Interna-
tional maritime law, however, is so distinctly de-
claratory of the absolute fact of there being no such
power of detention and search, much less of cap
tare and condemnation, accorded to either of the
belligerents, in their action towards a Neutral
trading between neutral ports, that it becomes in
the utmost degree important that the earliest oppor-
tunity should be taken by Earl RUSSELL for dis-
claiming any such meaning as the one hinted at as
lying perdu in his ambiguous remarks. Once
prove—as this well-grounded student in the science
of International Law very pointedly intimates—
but once prove "the bona fide destination to a
neutral port," that is, on the part of any neutral
vessel under suspicion, and from that instant there
does not exist any " shadow of a right of further
detention." As to the mere possibility of there being
any reasonable suspicion entertained in regard to the
Peterhoff, bound as she was to Matamoras, he observes
and, as we think, quite uanswerablv "No
contra-
band goons could possibly have been found on board
the Peterhoff, when proceeding to Matamoras,
except such goods as may be prohibited by the
Mexican Government ; and it is for that Govern-
ment to enforce their own fiscal laws against smug-
ling r, Who possibly can gainsay this ? Any mre
than—that the Federal Government, as represented
by a Federal man-of-war, has nothing whatever, in
sneh a case to do with the Pezerhoff!
Firmness, dec'sion, promptitude in the display
of those qualities, if but manifested throughout
these miserable transactions by our authorities,
from the Foreign Secretary downwards, could not
possibly, we are persuaded, but have saved both
the English people and the citizens of the
Northern States of the American Union (that is,
of the American dis-Union), from an immense
amount_ of the very bitterest of heart-burnings.
For the sharp, bold words lately uttered in the
House of Commons by Mr. ROEBUCK, and again a
little while afterwards by Mr. HORSMAN, we dis-
tinctly hold Earl Rua= and his subordinates