The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

- ---.--- .-

PosT.—We don't intend to discuss any questions
of form or procedure which may be pending before
any or the American prize tribunals which are now
adj coating upon British ships. To understand,
however, even the nature of the proceedings, it is
necessary to bear in mind one clearly settled and
indisputable principle of international law, without
attending to which it is impossible even to judge of
the meaning of the accounts which occasionally
reach us of incidental decisions in the progress of
the pending suits. The principle to which we refer
is this. When a vessel is seized on the ground of
her illegal destination, the case must in the first in-
stance be determined by an examination of the
ship's papers, and by the evidence of her master and
crew. If nothing can be found in these to create
suspicion, no further evidence can be received, end
the owners of the ships are entitled to an absolute
judgment in their favour, with damages for the
detention of the ship. This rule, we need scarcely
say, is one entirely peculiar to the maritime tribu-
nals. In all other courts of justice, when a question
arises as to any fact, either side are at liberty to
prove that fact by any legal evidence which they can
adduce. But, in the case of seizure, the maritime
courts have laid down a positive rule of law that no
evidence can be adduced to support the capture
unless there appears cause for it in the evidence
coming from the ship itself. It is of some import-
ance clearly to explain the mode of proceeding. The
Peterhoff has been seized on an allegation that her
real destination was one of the blockaded ports. On
this allegation she is carried into an American port,
and submitted to the adjudication of an American
prize tribunal. Her captors have a right to seize
the ship's papers. If it appear by these papers
that she is bound for a blockaded port, the evidence
against her is complete ; but if her papers are all
regular, showing that she had cleared for a neutral
port, there is still another mode of inquiry per-
mitted to her captors. In the American port to
which she is brought there are Admiralty agents
who have power to examine on oath her master
and her crew. Their depositions are taken down
in writing, and sent, with the ship's papers,
to the admiralty court which is to decide on the va-
lidity of the capture. On these materials, and on
these materials alone, the cause must be heard. If
the papers be regular, and the answers of the master
and crew be clear and distinct, showing that she
was bound to a neutral port, the court has no power
to enter on any further inquiry. The captors might
have it in their power to produce a hundred wit-
nesses who would swear that captain and crew and
owners have all told them that she was really
bound to Charleston; they might be prepared to
show that passengers had been taken on board to be
conveyed there ; not one word of this evidence could
be received; the ship must be judged upon the ma-
terials before the court—that is, upon the papers
and the depositions—and unless something can be
found in them to impeach the bona fides of her pro-
ceedings, the ship must be instantly discharged.
If, indeed, there is on the papers and depositions
so much ambiguity as to leave the legality of the
voyage in doubt, then the courts are in the habit of
permitting the owners to adduce extrinsic evidence
to clear this up. The captors have even in some
very rare and exceptional instances been allowed
to adduce evidence on their side. But the rule is
perfectly established that, if nothing appears on the
papers and depositions to justify the seizure, the
owners are entitled to a return of their vessel, and
no evidence can be heard,: to condemn it. This
peculiarity of maritime procedure is of course per-
fectly familiar to all who are acquainted with mari-
time law. The rule was stated by Lord Stowell
with his usual clearness in the case of an American
ship, the Fortuna, tried before him in 1811. " The
captor," he said, " is not called on at the commence-
ment of the suit to state the particular grounds on
which he contends that the vessel is a lawful prize.
He has a right to institute the inquiry, and to
take his chance of the benefit of any fact that may
be produced in the result of that inquiry. This is
a great advantage on the side of the captor, but
it is controlled by his liability to costs and damages
if the inquiry produces nothing, and it is fully
balanced by the advantage given to the claimant in
this species of proceeding that no evidence shall be
admitted against him but such as proceeds from
himself and from his own witnesses, the captor not
being permitted, except in cases marked by pecu
liar circumstances, to furnish any evidence what-
ever!' The greatest of American jurists, Judge
Story, in his work upon prize courts, lays down the
same rule. "It is upon the ship's papers and de.
positions thus returned that the cause is in the first

instance to be heard and tried. This is not a mere
matter of form ; it is of the very essence of the ad-
ministration of prize law." To multiply authorities
is unnecessary, and would far exceed the ;limits of
an article. Those who wish to pursue the subject
for themselves will find it duly discussed in the
note of Judge Story, in his " Principles and Prac-
tice of Prize Courts." In the same volume will be
found a document of the very highest authority,
and written under circumstances which invest it

with a peculiar interest. In 1794 Mr. Jay, the
American Minister, applied to Lord Stowell, then
Sir W. Scott, and Dr. Nicholl, to supply him with

a statement as to the general principles regulating
the practice of the British prize courts. In reply
they were able to transmit to him a report made to
George 11. in 1753, by Sir George Lee, then Judge
of the Prerogative Court, Dr. Paul, his Majesty's
Advocate-General, Sir Dudley Rider, his Majesty's
Attorney-General, and Mr. Murray, afterwards
Lord Mansfield, his Solicitor-General. In this re-
port the rule is thus stated—" The evidence to
acquit or condemn, with or without costs or da-
mages, must, in the first instance, come merely
from the ship taken—" viz., the papers on board,
and the examination on oath of the master and other
principal officers—for which purpose there are
officers of admiralty in all the considerable sea-
ports of every maritime Power at war, to examine
the captains and other principal officers of every
ship brought in as a prize, upon general and im-
partial interrogatories. If there do not appear
from thence ground to condemn an enemy's pro-
perty, or contraband goods going to the enemy,
there must be an acquittal, unless from the evidence
aforesaid, the property shall appear so doubtful
that it is reasonable to go into further proof thereof.
In this method," concludes the report, by
courts of admiralty acting according to the laws of
nations and particular treaties, all captures at sea
have been immemoriably judged in every country
in Europe. Any other mode of trial would be
manifestly unjust, absurd, and impracticable."
TIMES.—It has been raid, with too much truth, '
that in this country the non-performance of public
duties is often more profitable than their perform.
ance. We compensate more handsomely than we
remunerate, arid grant retiring pensions out of all
proportion to the salaries which we think adequate
for the highest services. It was shown the other
day by one of our correspondents that a gentleman
who for many years filled an important office at the
Admiralty was a positive gainer by being invalided,
and enjoys, or will shortly enjoy, a much larger in-
come as a non-effective than he ever had while he
was in active employment. Much in the same way
it may be possible that a military offiner retiring
from his regiment may leave his family in a much
better position than one who is killed in action.
The widow of the latter, it is true, is entitled to a
slender annuity for life, and his children receive
small sums annually till they come of age, but it is
seldom indeed that these allowances represent the
bare interest on the money actually sunk. The
hardship arising from such a case is peculiarly felt

where the rank or command held by the deceased
officer was conferred on him as the reward, and the
only substantial reward, for signal merits. In this
instance the gratitude of the country, being limited
to the lifetime of its object, may be entirely defeated
by his early death. Hereditary distinctions, such
as peerages and baronetcies, are not liable to be
thus extinguished if the first bearer leave any male
issue, but the nation is rarely backward to accom-
pany such honours with the means of keeping
them up. It is otherwise where the recognition of
brilliant achievements comes in the form of knight-
hood or promotion. The title, of course, does not
descend, and, unless the officer live long enough to
make provision for his family out of his increased
income, they take no permanent benefit by the ac-
cession of personal dignity. If he should die in the
following year, for instance, they will have reason
to regret that he had not sold out before the oppor-
tunity of rendering conspicuous service to his coun-
try ever arose. These reflections are forced upon us
with peculiar cogency by an individual instance of
just such a miscarriage. Short as memories are in this
generation, the defence of Lucknow is never men-
tioned or remembered without a thrill of national
pride. It was the greatest deed of a war which
was remarkable for great deeds of heroism, and it
was the cause of other great deeds the lustre of
which has somewhat obscured that of the defence
itself. Had Lucknow not held out as it did, there
would have been no occasion for Havelock's victo-
ries, and the relief of it by Lord Clyde could never
have become a part of history. That it did so hold
out, and that constancy and discipline were main-
tained unbroken among its defenders, is admitted
on all bands to have been mainly due to Sir John
Inglis. Ample justice was done from the first by
the Governor-General and the Home Government,
no less than by the public, to his "enduring forti-
tude and persevering gallantry ;" but we believe
that the military profession alone can fully appre-
ciate the skill and resources manifested in those
three eventful mouths of the siege. For this splen-
did piece of service Colonel Inglis, as he then was,
was raised to the rank of Major-General, and made
wish to provoke invidious comparisons, but solely
a Knight Commander of the Bath. It is with no

~.,r,._.....--_-

in order to show how different is the pecuniary
value of such promotion and of the recompense
sometimes given to be:ots, that we here quote the
preerdants of Williams and Havelock. Sir Wil-
liam Williams's defence of Kars was a feat in many"
respects similar to Sir John Inglis's defence of
Lucknow, though it must be recorded, in fairness
;o the latter, that. it was not equally successful;
yet certainly no one felt that the hero of it was.,
over-rewarded by a baronetcy with a pension of
£l,OOO a year attached toit. The command of the
garrison of Woolwich and the command of the
troops in Canada were additional marks of Het
Majesty's favour. To the widow end son of Sir
Henry Havelock, who can hardly be said to have
relieved Lucknow, though thu name of that city is
appended tot he bat on etcy were awarded respectively
similar pensions of £l,OOO a year, amid the applause
of the whole nation, We are tar from saying that the
inferior honours bestowed on Sir John Inglis were
a shabby req ;rata' of his deserts, bat we ish:to point
ont that they were inferior, and not only inferior,
but—what is of greater importance—far more pre-
carious. Having been made a Major-General he was
afterwards appointed to the command in Corfu.
Had he lived he might here, perhaps, have saved a
considerable sum in the course of time, but his
health was shattered by his Indian service, and be
unhappily died of an lonian fever a few months ago,
leaving a widow and five children, to whom a sixth
was added but a week since. The worth of his
commission having been lost by the very fact (gilts
promotion, a share of prize money amounting to
less than £2OO, a widow's pension of £l4O a year,
and an allotment of £25 each for all the children
so long as they are under age, is all the acknow-
ledgment that remains to the representatives of a
man to whom our 'lndian Empire owes so much.
Now, the question is not whether this does not
pain our feelings, but, simp:y whether this is right.
There are many brave men who have fallen in their
country's service after exertions not less heroic,
though more humble, than those of Sir John Inglis,
and whose widows may have at least an equal •
claim on the score of compassion to the national
bounty. When we select this as an exceptional
case, demanding the attention of the Government,
we do not speak of compassion but of equity.
Unless it can be shown that Sir John has never re-
ceived what he had a right to expect, and what the
English nation, from the Queen downwards, in-
tended to give him, we should be ashamed to plead
on behalf of Lady Inglis. We regara this as a re-
markable example of the injustice which the system
of rewarding public benefactors by offices tenable
for life may occasionally work. Where it does work
such injustice it is surely the part of the Govern-
ment, and, if necessary, of the Legislature, to step
in and redress the hardship which would otherwise
be suffered. All that is required, or could properly
be asked, is that the widow of Sir John Inglis
should be placed in the same position which would
have been unanimously and most cheerfully con-
ceded to her if her husband's premature death could
have been foreseen.

COUNTRY MARMv(TS.

ir,

LIVERPOOL—TUESDAY.
At our market to-day there was a fair attendance of
millers and dealers, and an improved demand experienced
for wheat at generally the full prices of this day week, but
ld to 2d per 100ib more money for good winter red Ameri-
can. Four more inquired for, but not dearer. Oats and
meal, with a slow sale, barely maintained Friday's prices.
Barley and peas as before. Egyptian beans were easier to
buy. Indian corn was rather neglected,

MARKET HARBOROUGH—TUESDAY.
White wheat, 48s to s:s; red, 43s to 46s per 36 stone.
Malting barley
,at 37s to —s7per qr.; grinding, 308 to 325
per 30 st. Oats, old, 26s to 295; new, 22s to 25s.per 24
st. ; beans, 34s to 39s per qr.

BRISTOL—TUESDAY.
The transactions in the corn market here to-day were
purely nominal, and call for no report.

SHEFFIELD—TUSDA.
Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial busEhels..Y.lss Od to 165 ti
White
)) ...20s Od to 2 P.,1"-
New red
...17s Od to 185
New white ..
.18s Od ' u`'

...18s .. to 105t4
I,
_ „
... 158 Od to 19s v'
Beans
f) ~
45s Od to 56s n
Peas, per qr
28s Od to 300'"A
Grinding barley, per qr
7,1
Malting ditto, „ 34s Od to 38s
21s Od to 27s vs"
Oats

Flouic is 7d to 2s 2d per stone.

LEEDS—TUESDAY.
There bas been a fair business done in wheat, at abort
er
last week's prices. In some instances for fine reds folio
prices were exceeded. Beans firm. No other change'

NEWCASTLE—MONDAY.
A moderate show of wheat on offer to-day, and sales
were made at a slight advance on last week's rates. Trad(ki
healthy. A small show of oats. No malting barleh,all
a moderate quantity of grinding sorts, with a steady sale at
late quotations.

Old white wheat..s7s to 61s Old red wheat, s3s to 668
New do. ..48s to 538, New do. 428 to 49s
Malting barley••••37s to 42s Oats. 22s to 320
Grinding d 0... •.29s to 32s I Beans 37s to 460
I