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

SPIRIT OP 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 Lard 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 tk,lst 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 Britisti
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 lat en 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 f...ct 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 citizens
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 Uovernment 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. What
Ministers reaily 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 profeat to be very disinterested in this
matter. To say the truth we are by no means sure
that the trade in questioe 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 th, future the establishment of the
doctrine would 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 innomous rights of neutrals have been recently
enlarged there 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 a satisfactory state. At present i
appears that if a citizen of a neutral Power canno
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 law—in terms which show that he 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 a',l 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 Federals. There is an equally-
general impression that 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, bat 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
" 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 BritiA 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
case is probably within the statute, ought not Lord
Russell to exercise his power of detention ? The
building of these rams does in fact "tend to en-
danger the peace and welfare of this kingdom "
(preamble of the act); the sailing of these
.11
rams
unchecked may—and, we are told, probably welt
for
precipitate all England into a huge war ;
what, or whose benefit, is England to run this risk
For the private benefit of Mr. Laird, the shipbuilder

—unlessit be for the Confederates.
If " the peace and welfare of this kingdom" be the
right point of view, and it can be no degradation to
execute our own laws, it is of quite secondary im-
portance to consider at this moment the limits of
commercial licence tolerated to neutrals by purely
international law. In such great matters as peace
or war, as Mr. Burke has said, " What a lawyer
tells me I may do" is not enough,
But it seems that your correspondent, who justi-

L 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 veag 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 belligetetit. 3. The allowing or forbidding the
exportation of any article is equally an act of sove-
reignty, and the operation of allowing the exporta-
tion of :thios of war for both the present belligerents
is not equal ; it is very unequal. The Federals can
build war ships for themselves; the Confederates
cannot build ; the Federals have a commercial navy
to be ravaged; the Confederates have none.
But, further, 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 Vattel 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 made not by im-
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 opera' ions of either belligerent. If either
North or South, themselves abstaining from taking
arms from England, had remonstrated w;.th us for
suffering th:.t export of arms to the other beihgc—
r,n-it, and rernanAr.tnce not prevaiiing had declared
war with us, persons not gunmakers might think
we should not have been fighling for a good caube.
The same persons may now wish that her Majesty
had exercised her statutory right of forbidding by
order in Council the export of arms, &e., to either
Federals or Confederates (16 and 17 Victoria, cap.
107, sec. 150). This right 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 shall 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. Chamerovzow
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-
tion seems to be justice for the negro and injustice
for every one else. What right have they to advo-
cate arbitrary confiscatiou ? We may have a great
horror in England of slavery, but th-at 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 nits been harassed by a species of
piracy carried on in the tame 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
ow❑ policy, if not to spare us as a nation the igno-
miny of his capitulation and surrender of English

nterests 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
America? in
"On anti-slavery grounds alone," urge
,11 itnhtaetr fet rheen cGe
ot s jv
e runs tmffie an bt eo. 'f'
thewre m
se
un ab omr ii at i s
ht so,
w‘
e‘
ve r s uc
Great Britain is not a mere committee of philan-
thropists dominated by a single idea. We would
add, too, that philanthropy itself is abused and
misrepresented by them. They would dig myriads
of graves for white men, and desolate entire re•
gions of the globe in order to abolish a particular
institution. They would make of the negro at once
a freeman and a murderer, for in the same breath
they summon him to revolt and to consecrate his
first hour of liberty by massacre and pillage in the
planter's home. We tell these fanatics that the
policy for which they clamour is drenching the
earth with blood, is demoralising a great people, is
destroying the constitutionalism of America, is mul-
tiplying atrocious crimes, is laying cities in ruins,
and plucking up harvests by the roots, is en-
gendering the most deadly hatreds and encou-
raging the most hideous tyranny; and that
were it finally triumphant its fruit, gathered in
a wilderness of ruin and slaughter, would prove
a bitter gift to the negro. But 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
aborigisies who hate an English sailor, but would
cherish a Malayan pirate, who call our soldiers cut
throats while they are tender to Bosjesmen and
Kaffirs, and who, like them, deem that a doubtful
liberty secured for the African labourers in the I
Southern States may well and mercifully be punished I
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
observe, formidable proportions. Among the sig-
natures are three peers, many members of Parlia-
ment, numerous clergymen. an immense array of
commercial influence, and not a few men whose
hearts are fervently in the cause of emancipa-
tion, but who have not been duped by the
tardy hypocrisy of the North, with its shame-
ful and bloody holocaust of negro victims at
New York. These memorialists declare that
Great Britain, France, and Belgium, with any
other Powers which may be willing to assist, have
a perfect right to interfere and put an end to
" a world-wide calamity ; "
that the Southern
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 result:ess 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
delation, receiving his instructions from a foreign
cabinet, and playing the pirate, so to express it, by
proxy, in the British dockyards on the Mersey.