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

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—Sept. 9.

(Before Mr. Sergeant Gazelee.)
THE CASE OF HENRY CONDEROT.
At the sitting of the Court Mr. Metcalfe said before the
first case was proceeded with he wished to draw his Lord-
ship's attention to a case which was tried yesterday—that of
Henry Conderot —in which he appeared for the prisoner.
He was compelled to go away before the case was concluded,
but he found it reported that Mr. Sleigh had made some re-
flections upon him in putting the prisoner forward as a re-
spectable man, but he could assure his Lordship that up to
the time he read the report in the paper he had no idea
whatever but that the prisoner was a person of good cha-
racter, nor was he aware of the previous French convictions,
As to his having reflected upon the conduct of the prose-
cutor, that was done in consequence of the instructions re-
ceived by the attorney who instructed him, and from the
prisoner, and he should always deem it his duty and should
adhere to his practice of putting the prisoner's case as
strongly as he could before the jury, leaving them to be the
judges of the facts.
Mr. Besley said only a fewmoments since he had spoken
to Mr. Sleigh, and he could say that throughout he guarded
himself against attaching any imputation to Mr. Metcalfe
that he was, aware of the prisoner's previous character.
Mr. Metcalfe said he knew nothing of any previous con-
viction.

Mr, Sergeant Gaselee said he did not for one moment
mean to say that Mr. Metcalfe did know of the previous
convictions. Of that he was quite certain, and after the
explanation of Mr. Besley it really seemed to him there was
no one to blame at all in the matter,
Edward Head was indicted for stealing a brooch, watch,
watchguard. shawls, tablecovers, blankets, sheets, and £2
Bs. 6d. in money, the property and moneys of Elijah Lane.
Mr. Bebley prosecuted ; Mr. Ribton defended the prisoner.
chEesitiejra.hBtLreaente,,
Hrrthaeporwosecutor, was examined by Mr. Bes -
ley. He said--I am a cab proprietor, and live at 67, Wood-
Ju-lry°,adh.aviinhgadseeknnohwimn athe w prisonerork
with
previous to the 18th
other men at a builaing going on five or six houses off from
that I occupy. On the evening of the 17th July my wife
came home to my house, being accompanied by a woman
named Oakley. I refused to admit the woman Oakley, as
she was the worse for drink. My wife came into the house,
and afterwards went out again and did not return that
night. I did not see her at all on the 18th. I did not see
her again until the 24th August. Before the 18th July I
had some bed linen in the house, a watch and chain, stock-
ings, and other articles, but after the 18th July they ware
gene. About half the feathers were taken out of the bed,
and a great quantity of wearing apparel. Three boxes con-
taining various articles were taken away. All these things
had been taken away without my consent. It was several
weeks after this that I saw my wife again. I tried to find
out where she lived and followed her for about 16 miles,
when, being tired, I was obliged to give up the pursuit. I
gave directions to some person in reference to the prisoner,
and in consequence of what he told me I went to No. 32,
John-street, Tottenham-court-road. I watched the house
on two or three occasions to see if my wife went in there.
I went to this house on the 24th of August, about 4 o'clock
in the afternoon. I returned to it about 9 o'clock the same
night, when I went upstairs into a back attic. I found my
wife lying under the bed and the prisoner lying on it. I
there saw some of the property I had missed from my house
on the 18th of July. The first thing I saw was a box which
had been taken from my house, but the contents were gone.
I found three boxes in the room. One of the boxes the pri-
soner said belonged to him, which was locked, and ho gave
the key of it to a policeman. In that box were found a silk
dress, a tablecover, and a number of articles that I cannot
now recollect, which belonged to me. The blanket, sheets,
counterpane, and pillow-cases on the bed I identified as my
property. I did not recover them. I have seen nothing of
my watch or chain since. The value of the property I lost
independent oafpmytol wife's a wearingaboutapp £lo,arel o
,was far
saabr asou I
about £lO.
Her wearing pa
abletojudge.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton---My wife never left me
before for any length of time except to go into the country
to visit her friends. She never left my house before with •
out my consent. NVe were on good terms together, but
like other persons, we may have had a word or so, but no.•
thing more. We never had any serious quarrel except
upon one occasion, when she came home the worse for
liquor.

Mr. Besley objected to such questions, as they did not go
to impeach the veracity of the witness.
Mr. Ribton said he had never heard such an objection in
the course of his experience in the criminal law, and he was
sure it would not, have been taken by any counsel who
knew his business.
Mr. Besley said such observations applied to him were
most impertinent.
Mr. Sergeant Gazeleo thought that such observations
ought not to be made.
___

Mr. Itibton—Then I will retract it. No one doubts
that Mr. Besley knows his business, In fact he knows too
much.

Cross. examination continued—My wife did not leave me
before. I knew that my wife went away upon one occasion,
but that was with my consent. I never desired her to leave
her home. On this occasion I did not tell her to go. I did
not say if she did so she might have her things. That Ni as
not very likely. I did not wear the watch I have lost con-
stantly, and my wife sometimes wore it, perhaps once a
mouth. It was not her watch. Two of the boxes taken
away were used to keep clothes in, the other for articles used
in the house, such as tablecloths, counterpanes, &c. The
sheets, blankets, and counterpane I found on the bed I know
belonged to me. I identified the sheets by the peculiar way
in which they were hemmed, as my property. After they
left my place they had been marked with the letters c,
(Edward Head). There was a peculiar mark round the
blankets by which I knew them. I bought the watch in
Oxford-street and also the chain. There were three anti-
macassars taken, found in the box of which the prisoner
held the key, which I also identity as my property.
Sarah Ann Lane, daughter of the prosecutor, said her
mother was at home on the 17. h July, but she went out and
remained out the whole of that night. On the 18th July
her mother came home about 11 o'clock, bringing the pri-
soner with her. Her mother packed two of the boxes, and
the prisoner packed and corded another, He was there
about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, He went away
before her mother with the boxes. Her mother then went
out, and she did not see her afterwards. Witness was in li
the kitchen and heard a cart come up, and the boxes were
put into it. The things produced were packed that morning.
Cross-examined—l did not hear my mother ask the pri-
soner to cord the boxes. I went up into the room and saw
the prisoner cording one of the boxes. There was no one
but my mother with the prisoner. I went upstairs when I
heard the prisoner come in, r
have no recollection of my
mother leaving her home before. I never heard my father
tell her to leave and go away. My father and mother had
no quarrel the night before, but my father would not allow
my mother to bring another woman into the house. My
mother then went out and stopped out all night. She came
on the following morning and began to pack up her clothes,
By the Court—l saw a donkey. cart come for the boxes,
and a young man was with it, but the man was not the pri-
soner.

Elijah Wheatley said he lodged with Mr. Lane. He had
not eeen the prisoner before the 18th of July. He saw the
prisoner and Mrs. Lane near the Bishop's-road Station of
the Metropolitan Railway. He was carrying her shawl and
parasol on hio arm He opfdra to Mro. Lan, nil had,7ooll
the prisoner on several occasions.

Cross-examined—He lodged with Mr. Lane for 6 months.
Mrs. Lane was out for two nights while he was there. He
asked her what she was doing, and to return to her home.
She said she would not. She never mentioned the name of
her husband.

Mary Ann Black said,—l keep the house No, 32, John-
street, Tottenham-court-road. The !prisoner came to my
house about taking a room on the 20th or 21st of July. He
was accompanied by Mrs. Lane, whom he represented as his
wife. The woman said they wanted to come in immediately,
as they had been living with her sister, and she had given
up housekeeping, The next day they brought 4or 5 boxes
in a cab, and the prisoner and the man took the boxes up-
stairs together. The blankets, sheets, and counterpane on
the bed did not belong to me.

Robert Grove, a cab proprietor, said on the 24th of
August he accompanied the prosecutor to a house, No. 32,
John-street, Tottenham-court-road, and went to the back
attic. He saw the prisoner lying on the bed. and Mrs.
Lane lying under the bed. The prisoner's first words were
4, Go out of my room, or I will d— soon put you out. Wit-
ness asked the prosecutor if he had any knowledge of any-
thing that was in the room, and ho said the boxes in the
room belonged b him. He also said the blankets on the bed
were his. Mrs. Lane said they were not, and that they be-
longed to the landlady. Ho saw a box opened, out of which
one of the prosecutor's stockings was taken. The box was
locked, and the key of it came out of the prisoner's pocket.
Witness was sute that the box was locked. Witness said
to prosemtor, " Here is a box which we have not examined,
and it had better be opened."
John Baker, 42 E, police constable, said he went to No
, 32, John-street, Tottenham-court. road, with the prosecutor
and Mr. Grove. He saw the prisoner on the bed, and Mrs.
Lane crawled from under it. He asked whom a box belonged
to, and the prisoner said it belonged to him. He took a key
from his pocket and the box was opened. In it were found
some articles which the prosecutor identified as belonging
to him, and a letter addressed to the prisoner from his wife,
whom he had sect down to Sidmouth, in Devonshire, with
her children. (In this letter, which was couched in affec-
, tionate terms, she applied to the prisoner for money, as the
children were in vant, and she had scarcely a hit of shoe to
her feet).
Mr. Ribton then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and,
after citing several eases which had been decided, contended
that no felony had been made out in this ease, as the wife

had a right to her wearing apparel and the boxes to contain
it, and as to the prisoner cording her boxes there was no
proof that he had not done so at the request of the woman
Whatever opinion they might form as to the morality of the
prisoner, no felony had been established against him, and
he asked them to acquit him of the offence with which he
stood charged.
After a summing up of the evidence,
The jury consulted together for about half an hour, when
the foreman said as there appeared to be a doubt whether
this wars an act of felony they gave the prisoner the benefit
of it.
The prisoner was then discharged.

Mrs. Lane was sitting outside the entrance to the court
during the trial, and was laughing and joking with her
acquaintances.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—We cannot expect that the doubting
public will derive any great assurance from the
letter of Mr. Vernon Lushington on the Steam Rams
in the Mersey which we publish this morning. The
assumption with which our correspondent commences
his argument begs the entire question practically at
issue. If there were "evidence of the fact" that these
vessels are actually destined for the use of the Con-
federate States and also a certainty, or a reasonable
amount of probability, that this would bring the
adventure within the scope of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act, nobody can deny that Lord Russell
might " exercise his power of detention" and
forbid the ships to leave the port. But, unfortu-
nately, neither of these conditions can be easily
satisfied. That there is not, or was not, sufficient
evidence of the fact we know from the avowal of
Lord Russell himself, and that there is nothing
positive in the applicability of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act to the case must be inevitably inferred from
the experiment tried upon the Alexandra. The ques-
tion actually pressing for decision at this moment is,
doubtless, as Mr. Lushington states it—" Ought not
Lord Russell, as British Minister, acting under the
power of the Foreign Enlistment Act, to order the
detention of the steam rams in the Mersey ?" This
question, however, can only be decided by evidence
which does not appear to be forthcoming, and it
does Lot help the case in the least to assume the
discovery of what cannot be found. A few days
ago Lord Russell did certainly not, by his own
admission, conceive himself to possess, as British
Minister, any sufficient warrant for the sug-
gested exercise of power; and unless we are mis-
informed, he has since that time received assurances
of the really innocent character of the sus-
pected vessels. On this point, however, we cannot
expect the public to be very credulous. Probably
nine people out of ten are prepossessed with a pretty
firm opinion upon the ultimate destination of these
ships of war, but Government can act only upon
stronger grounds than this, and such grounds had
not Bien discovered at the date of Lord Russell's
letter. Nor can we think our correspondent's argu-
ments are any more conclusive when they are based
upon the actual circumstances of our present posi-
tion. It does seem to be the fact that the construc-
tion of these vessels in British yards " tend to endan-
ger the peace and welfare of this kingdom ;" inso-
much that we have been actually threatened with
war in case any more such cruisers should be allowed
to escape from our ports. It is also true that not only
the preamble of the Foreign Enlistment Act, but
the broader theory of international law, forbids
as unlawful any such acts on the part of citizeus
of a State as tend to compromise the public secu-
rity. But it needs no argument of ours to prove
that this doctrine can only be laid down with limi-
tations. The acts in question must be such acts as a
foreign State can only complain of, but complain of
with reason; otherwise any Government might at
any time dictate to any other Government a modi-
fication of its laws under threat of war. We have
been repeatedly placed in imminent danger of war
by the acts of private citizens as well as by the policy
of Government. Scarcely a foreign Court but has
remonstrated with us more or less fiercely on some
of the results which the rights of political asylum
and free discussion are calculated to produce. On
these occasions we have always been resolute in
maintaining our privileges, and it is not so very
long since a Government was overthrown in an
attempt to give greater stringency to English law
at the presumed instance of a foreign Power. It is
not enough, therefore, to allege that "in fact" the
proceedings in question endanger the public peace.
If they are not proceedings proscribed by law, Go-
vernment can bring no law to bear upon them. NA, hat
Ministers ready want is plain enough from Lord Rus-
sell's letter. They want producible evidence of the
fact that the Steam Rams in the Mersey come within
the scope of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or such
evidence as will at any rate justify them in detaining
the vessels and leaving the case for the judgment of
a Court. Their anxiety to obtain this evidence,
and their readiness to act upon it when obtained,
are so plainly visible that the Federal Government
ought to give us credit for fair intentions. We
may say, too, that the public is of the same mind
also, and that the news that these Rams had been
stopped would be received with general gratification.
We do not profess to be very disinterested in this
matter. To say the truth we are by no means sure
that the trade in questioa could be proved to be
unlawful either by British or American law; but
we are perfectly sure that if it could be stamped as
unlawful for the future the establishment of the
doctrine s ould be very much to our advantage.
We concur, too, in the idea of our correspondent,
that as international law is always making, and as
the in noxious rights of neutrals have been recently
enlarged t here would be some propriety in seizing the
opportunity to limit neutral rights in the more ques-
tionable kinds of commercial adventure. We must
confess to an opinion, after a vigilant observation of
this controversy, that nothing less than a distinct
proscription of the trade in question would suffice to
place the law in anatisfactory state. At present it
appears that if a citizen of a neutral Power cannot
actually sell a vessel like the Alabama to a belli-
gerent without offence, he can so very nearly do
-so that the impediments in his way are of little
avail. The sale of the Alabama herself could cer-
tainly have been de fended perhaps even successfully.
The particular acts required to make the transac-
tion unlawful can so easily be omitted, disguised,
or suspended, while the real bargain goes on all the
while, that the law is almost powerless. Our cor-
respondent speaks of the Foreign Enlistment Act
itself —that act on which he would have Ministers
ground their proceedings irrespectively of inter-
national la w—ire terms which show that be can put
little faith in its operation. There is nothing for it
but to declare the sale of ships of war to a belli-
gerent plainly and indisputably unlawfu:. This
would be an innovation, but the innovation would
be all in our own interests. It would altogether
relieve us, as neutrals, from 'the recurrence of
predicaments like the present, and it would protect
us as belligerents from the operation of a practice
which could not but be troublesome, if not danger-
ous. After all, however, perhaps our correspondent
is simply, though insensibly, expressing a desire,
which we have no doubt is pretty generally; felt,
that Government would cut a vexatious knot by
detaining these two steam rams and trusting the
case to trial. That is a matter for Government
itself to consider. There is a very common belief
that these vessels, to whatever order they were
originally laid down, or through whatever hands
they may be intermediately passed, are des-
tined in the end for the service of the Confede-
rates against the Federale. There is an equally
general impreaminn :hat if we were in the position
of the Federals, and had suffered as they have from
the operations of such vessels, we should be unlikely
to take the matter quietly. Nor can we say that
we should expect to find much counterpoise to these
opinions in any sympathy for that " commercial
adventure" which selects channels of such equivocal
propriety. In short, if Ministers detained these
vessels we do not think they' would be hardly
judged, but the question depends upon evidence
which can only be known hereafter.

' The following is the letter referred to above :—.
Sir,—The letters of your able correspondent
0 Phocion" may lead some of your readers from the
true and urgent issue, which is not—What is the
duty of a neutral State by international law ? but
this—Ought not Lord Russell, as British Minister,
acting under the power of the Foreign Enlistment
Act, to order the detention of the steam rams in the
Mersey ? It is to this latter issue I would recall the
attention of your readers.
That the building of these steam rams is with in-
tent that they shall be employed in the service of the
Confederate Government and that this is positively
' or probably within the terms of the 7th section
of the Foreign Enlistment Act (59 George 111.,
cap. 69) I assume; for I do not know the evidence,
and I will not trouble your readers with the cum-
brous terms of that ill-drawn statute. Assuming
that there is some evidence of the fact, and that the
6480 IS probably within the statute, ought not Lord
Russell to cxerciso his power of detention ? The
building of these rams does in fact
`` tend to
`larger the peace and iv,Ar.re of this Liilgd
lmen,-,
(preamble of the act); the sailing of these rams
mar—and we are told, probably
precipitate all England into a hurwi;and for
ll—
what, or whose benefit, is England
For the private benefit of Mr. Laird,
g e
to
th7ei:' n this risk
shipbuilder?
—unless it he for the Confederates.
If " the peace and welfare of this kingdom" be the
right point of view, and it can
execute our own laws, it is quiteot. secondary im-
portance to consider at this be
no degradation to
moment the limits of
.
commercial licence tolerated to neutrals by purely
international law. In such
gdit 4, What a lawyer
matters as peace
I or war, as Mr. Burke has said,
tells me I may do" is not enough,
But it seems that your correspondent, who justi-

fies our allowing the sale of ships of war by a British
shipbuilder to the Confederate Government, may
be answered on his own ground thus :-1. The
British shipbuilder was not before the war accus-
tomed to build ships of war for the Confederate
Government, 2. The British shipbuilder was not
accustomed 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 hove-
reigntyl and the operation of allowing the exporta-
tion of ships of war for both the present belligerents
2s not equal ; it is very unequal. The Federals can
build war fillips for themselves; the Confederates
cannot build ; the Federals have a commercial navy
to be ravaged; the Confederates have none.
But, farther, 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
that Vette' 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,lare comparatively of slight
authority, for they are precedents mado not byim-
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 fur a good cause.
The same perswis 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 riglit 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 snail 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.

HERALD.—We published yesterday two docu-
ments which showed in striking contrast one with
the other. The first purported to be a memorial to
Earl Russell from the British and Foreign Anti
Slavery Society on the subject of the steam rams in
the Mersey. The second was a quotation from an
address recently issued by the Central Association
for the Recognition of the Confederate States. It is
interesting to compare these papers, which illus-
trate with wonderful truth the difference between
mock humanitarianism and genuine humanity. The
committee which authorises Mr. L. A. Chatnerovzow
to append his very continental signature on their
behalf complain of the vessels, with iron rams and
turrets, that would have frightened Troy, which are
now in preparation in what Gibbon called " the
active waters" of the Mersey and the Clyde.
They are designed, affirms the memorial, for the
service of the American rebels. Whence comes the
information of these positive gentlemen ? Appa-
rently they resemble the lecturer who assured his
audience that he had the utmost contempt for facts
and confined himself to principles. The principle
of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Associa-
rion seems to be justice for the negro and injustice
for every one else. What right have they to advo-
cate arbitrary confiscation ? We may have a great
horror in England of slavery, but that is no reason
why we should violate the law; and if our Foreign
Secretary has really given way, upon the false and
flimsy grounds alleged, and resolved to detain the
ships of Mr. Laird's construction, he may bring the
Crown itself into Court and be compelled to prove
his justification by evidence. If he need not do
this—if the Queen, whose prerogative he and his
colleagues direct, can in these matters do no wrong
—what will be his position, as the cringing agent of
Federal America, in the sight of Federal America ?
Is it not enough that our Ministers have already
disgraced us beyond remedy by their pusillanimous
submission to insolence and outrage? We have
been virtually blockaded out of our own ports and
our commerce has been harassed by a species of
piracy carried on iu the name of a violated inter-
national code; and now our shipbuilders, we are
told, must be punished upon charges supported by
no evidence whatever. We know, however, what
the public opinion upon the question is, and if Earl
Russell does not, he will learn in time to repent his
own poiicy, if not to spare us as a nation the igno-
miny of his capitulation and surrender of English
interests to the Federal Cabinet. There is a poem
which the late Sir Robert Peel was in the habit of
quoting. It spoke of England as having in the
course of her history grieved, wept, and groaned ;
but as having " never blushed." Could we say that
after striking the colours of our commerce in the
Mersey at the dictation of a demagogue cabal in
America ? "On anti-slavery grounds alone," urge
the memorialists, "such interference is justifiable."
We submit, however, that the Government of
Great Britain is not a mere committee of philan-
thfopists dominated by a single idea. We would
add, too, that philanthropy itself is abused and
misrepresented by them. They would dig myriads
of graves 1 nor white men, and desolate entire re •
g
ions of the globe in order to abolish a particular
institution. The? would make of the negro at once
a freeman and a me:rderer, for in the same breath
they summon him to revolt and to consecrate his
first hour of liberty by z'assacre and pillage in the
planter's home. We tell these fanatics that the
policy for which they cleft.:
ur is drenching the
earth with blood, is demoralising a great people, is
destroying the constitutionalism o.C.America, is mul-
tiplying atrocious crimes, is laying in ruins,
and plucking up harvests by the mots, is en-
gendering the most deadly hatreds and encou-
raging the moat hideous tyranny; an that
were it finally triumphant its fruit, gathered in
a wilderness of ruin and slaughter, would prove
a bitter gift to the negro. Bat these gentry, who
assume to monopolise the humanity of the world,
who scoff at legality, who favour the employers of
hired informers and spies, and who have no objec-
tion to contraband bargains in war materials with
the stranglers of blacks beneath the lamplights of
New York, resemble those other champions of
aborigines who hate an English sailor, but would
cherish a Malayan pirate, who call our soldiers cut
throats while they are tender to Besjesmen and
Kaffirs, and who, like them, deem that a doubtful
liberty ser,nred for the African labourers in the
Southern States may well and mercifully be punished
by obliterating for a century the civilisation of half
a continent, slaughtering a million of men, and
trampling a gallant and Christian people either into
extermination, or into political and social slavery.
It is a relief to turn from them to the Central
Association for the Recognition of the Confede-
rate States. Its address is signed by men of all
shades of opinion in party matters. We make no
account of their general politics when scanning
what may emphatically be termed an eloquent
list. The organisation is assuming, we rejoice to
o„serve, formidable proportions. Among the sig-
namo are three peers, many members of Parlia-
ment, nth2erous clergymen, an immense array of
commercial
uifitience, and not a few men whose
hearts are ferve,:tlY
in the cause of emancipa-
tion,pot been duped by the
tardy hypocrisy .'
of to North, with its shame-
fulbut who haa:
and bloody holocaust of negro vi aims at
New York. These memori..lliats declare that
Great Britain, -France, and Be)Oium, with any
other Powers which may be willing
to assist, have
a perfect right to interfere and put 1.11 end to
" a world-wide calamity ; " that the aouthern
States can never, without infamy, cease the
conflict, unless by arbitration and in indepen-
dence ; that the " awful human butchery " is;
likely to go on for years if not terminated by
the supreme mandate of Europe ; that the
Federals may annihilate, but cannot reconcile ;
that " our own guiltless and suffering people "
ought to have their interests regarded by a British
Cabinet; and that every day of hesitation is a day
of torture to humanity. To this appeal most Eng-
lishmen respond. They are weary of the far-spread
and resuillees devastation in America, weary of
famine in Lancashire, weary of the patient subser-
viency exhibited by Ministers whose habit has been
to boast of themselves as the only patriotic states-
men in the realm. When, however, is the disgust
of the nation to be manifested in a form that shall
elicit a distinct policy from amid the simpering sub-
tleties and diplomatic abasements of our Foreign-
office? Will it be when Earl Russell brings his
country to further shame by patronising professional
deletion, receiving his instructions from a foreign
cabinet, and playing the pirate, so to express it, by
proxy, in the British dockyards on the ersey.