The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-02 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—In the course of the late argument on the
Foreign Enlistment Act many hypothetical cases
were framed by way of testing various theories of
its construction. It has happened, by a curious and
untoward coincidence, that one of these imaginary
problems has just received a practical illustration.
The case supposed was that of a ship built and
equipped for war without any intention of violating
the Act, and afterwards passing through the hands
of neutral purchasers into those of a belligerent
Government. It was admitted that such a trans-
action, being purely mercantile in all its essential
features, would be perfectly legitimate, though it
could hardly be denied that, if repeated too fre-
quently, it might be open to exception, and lead to
the very consequences deprecated by the Legislature.
While the decision on the seizure of the Alexandra
is still pending, the combination of circumstances
thus suggested has been realised in fact. A screw
gun-vessel, called the Victor, of 859 tons burden, and
350 horse power, was sold by direction of the Admi
ralty. She had been constructed, of course, for our
own Navy, and, besides being pierced for six guns,
was, no doubt, adapted in all respects for the purposes
of warfare. We are told that certain defects in the
engines affecting her rate of steaming were the prin-
cipal reason for parting with her. She was bought
ostensibly for the China trade, and having been
named the Scylla, was allowed to be repaired and
fitted with this object under the superintendence
of the dockyard officials at Chatham. Certain facts,
of which the particulars are not given, came to the
knowledge of these authorities, and were reported by
them to the Admiralty. Orders were eventually de-
spatched to Sheerness directing her to be stopped, but
she had quitted the harbour andsailed a few hours be-
fore, unfinished and with a number of workmen on
board. She forthwith hoisted the Confederate flag,
changed her name to the Rappahannock, and soon
anchored safely in Calais harbour. There she was
detained by the French Customhouse, but it appears
that express instructions have since been received
from headquarters permitting her to leave the port
at pleasure. We must reserve our opinion on the
conduct of our own officers at Chatham and Sheer-
ness until the special report of the case, which has
already been forwarded to the Admiralty, shall
have been laid before the public. In the mean-
time, it is much to be lamented that, after their
suspicions had once been aroused, it was possible
for the vessel to slip through their hands. The
Alabama escaped by a similar ruse, executed with
the utmost skill and secrecy, but such mishaps
ought not to occur twice, and very good reasons
will have to be given for the delay which caused the
order of embargo to arrive just too late. On the other
hand it would be folly to doubt for a moment that
the Admiralty acted throughout in perfect good faith.
Even if our Government had not been engaged, at
much risk to their popularity, in maintaining the
forfeiture of the Alexandra, the notion of their wil-
fully manufacturing vessels of war for the Confede-
rates would be utterly absurd. No one has ever pre-
tended that proceedings of that kind are consistent
with neutrality, or that the liberty of commerce
which has been claimed for private shipbuilders can
be conceded to a State in its public capacity. Some
time ago a case in which the Swedish Government
was concerned came under discussion in our columns.
Remonstrances were made at Stockholm by one bel-
ligerent against the sale by Sweden to the other
belligerent of some old vessels of war, and the jus-
tice of the objection was admitted. To adopt the
contrary principle would be to make the workmen in
our dockyards the mercenaries of a foreign Power,
and the naval resources of Great Britain an instru-
ment of aggression against States in amity with us.
For the sake of our own dignity, if better motives
were wanting, we could not tolerate this, and we
may be sure that it is the very last thing which the
Government would sanction. The difficulty is to
prevent it in an exceptional instance like the pre-
sent. Suppose the Victor, being unsuited for her
original purpose, was sold to a respectable English
firm, and transferred by them, at a high profit, to
Confederate agents. How is it possible for the
Admiralty to look beyond the first purchaser and
to control the ultimate destination of the vessel ?
As it happened, certain repairs were needed, and
the privilege of using the national dockyards was
conceded to the new owners. This gave the
Admiralty a power which they would not other-
wise have had, and which they were about to
exercise when they found themselves outwitted.
Apart from this incident of the business, the trick
which has been played could not have been an tici
pated. There is nothing strange in the proposal to
convert a man-of-war into a merchant vessel. We
have only to read the evidence as to the equipment
of the Alexandra to !earn how slight are the diffe-
rences in structure between the two. Greater
solidity, more or less height in the bulwarks, the ad-
dition of ringbolts or hammock nettings, the being
pierced with how ports—such are the trifling indica-
tions which, interpreted ey a sailor's eye, distinguish
the hull of the frigate from that of the "frigate-built"
merchantman. Yet it is notorious that some India-
men possess both hammock nettings and bow ports,
and even carry their bowsprits at that peculiar angle
which is, perhaps, more characteristic of a "Queen's
ship" than the symptoms we have mentioned. If
second-hand men-of-war are not oftener bought up
for the merchant service, it is because the Admiralty
generally find what they consider a profitable use
for them so long as their timbers are sound. More-
over, it is only for long voyages and certain kinds of
traffic that vessels of such costly materials and work-
manship are in request among shipowners. Aware
of this, the parties who negotiated for the Victor
took care to specify the China trade as that for
which she was intended, and might have taken her
across to Calais at once, if they had kindly selected
that as their port of departure in the first instance.
While, therefore, we heartily regret this evasion,
we regard it as one of those which must and will
be practised from time to time so long as the war
lasts in America and we remain neutral. It is
not to be expected that the Confederates will see
their enemies supplied with arms and munitions
of war from this country without trying to com-
pensate themselves in the readiest way. No
doubt we can justify ourselves by conclusive argu-
ments for prohibiting the equipment of ships under
penalties, though we leave the export of contraband
articles in general to be checked by the hostile
right of seizure. No doubt we can draw sound as
well as subtle distinctions between building a vessel
for sale to the highest bidder, selling it ready-made,
and equipping it to order, with a knowledge of its
destination. These are important, if not essential,
safeguards of neutrality ; but it is too much to hope
that they will be scrupulously respected by a belli-
gerent whose coasts are blockaded. The Confede-
rates feel, and with some justice, that the impartial
application of international law by us is injurious
in its actual effect upon them, and increases the
inequality of the struggle in which they are en-
gaged. -Men in this state of mind do not stick
at trifles, and may be pitied, though they cannot
be excused, when they combat force with fraud,
and sometimes deceive their friends to injure their
foes. Nations are not always jealous of their own
honour, but they are seldom particular about that
of their neighbours. The probability of our be-
coming involved with a quarrel with the Federals
about the Alabama or the Victor is not a considera-
tion which would defer a Confederate agent from
defeating our Foreign Enlistment Act if he could.
This is not his affair, but it is ours; and duty re-
quires us to look at it from our own point of view.
~,et the Confederates strain our laws to their own
advantage and oar inconvenience if they will and
can, but the administration of these laws rests with
us, and when they happen to break them they can
have no decent pretence for expecting impunity.
POST.—The case of Symm v. Fraser and Andrews
is one of very great importance to both the medica
profession and the public. It has been held, with
out question, that where it is proved that a doctor
has acted negligently it is not necessary to show
that he has also acted maliciously; but in this case
there was no imputation of negligence, and the
plea of the defendants, stated shortly, was that
they were called in by the plaintiff, and did what,
under the circumstances, they deemed best for her.
Mrs. Symm complained that Dr. Fraser and Dr.
Andrews had placed her under personal restraint
by putting a man and woman in her house to watch
over her, and had treated her as if she was in a
state of delirium tremens; and they replied that
they had followed the usual treatment of delirium
tremens, and had not restrained her beyond giving
general medical advice to her attendants to keep
her from drink. But, though omitted in theired p
pleas,su.
it was further contended by their counsel, nhad re-
ported by medical evidence, that if t
hjeuYstified in
strained her as was alleged they
t h
what they had done. In the case of Hall i.hasll v.
ago„
Sem-
ple, which was tried just twelve
jury found that the defendan _
mr. a signed a ce
ewmlt
negligently, and Justice Cromp-
cate of lunacy
no
ton laid it down "that if any person acts really
bona fide under the authority of the act by which b
these duties are assigned to him, he
beshould
made responsible for a mere error in judgment or
mistake of facts." In that case the doctors claimed
for their certificate the force of a lettre de cachet
ona
pro-
fessional but
under an Act of Parliament, and the question
was wag whether they had signed it negligently;
in Mrs. Symm's case thivegeyht
claimed,
to i
do what they
considered
le, tnhdei
to the welfare of
their
:oispet conducive
to personal restraint. In
pa tpi
erni most
both cases, however, the liberty of the subject
was abridged—in the one case as the jury found,
wrongfully behind the shield of the law; in the
other case, as the jury have decided rightfully, on
a principle of expediency and common sense. Now,
we have always had it impressed on us that when a
doctor is °tilled i ho is to be implicitly obeyed,

We are to assume that he is ordering all things for
onr good ; and this, as a general rule, is received
without objection. The principle is admitted. It
is, indeed, the principle we act upon in all our
worldly dealings, We put ourselves in the hands
of our lawyers, as well as our doctors. We trust
oar clerks, our shepmen, and our servants. Ia
railways and steamboats we resign ourselves to the
direction of captains and drivers. But we dodo
on the clear and well-defined understanding t
we are committing ourselves and our interests to
persons who are respousible for their conduct, and
the sense of their responsibility is the root of onr
confidence. The medical profession, however, as
represented in this case, admit of uo responsibility
where the action taken cannot be shown to be
negligent or malicious, as well as erroneous. As it
matter of fact there can be no doubt that Mrs.
Symm was in a state of delirium tremens when she
called in Dr. Fraser and Dr. Andrews, and that
their treatment was, on the whole, proper, and cere
tainly for her benefit. There can be no doubt
about the justice of the verdict they have obtained.
But doctors are not infallible; they are l
iafble to
make mistakes even as all men are; Mrs*
Symm had been suffering from any other disease
travelling gout, as was suggested—the error of her
medical attendants would, we apprehend, have
been held to be an error of judgment only. Here
it is that the shoe pinches. Mrs, Symm may have
reason to be thankful that, through the restraint
imposed upon her, her life was saved, or that she
was saved from a lunatic asylum, or at all events
from publicly disgracing herself, and she may be a
very ungrateful woman ; at the same time it is ire'
possible to dissemble the importance of the issue
that was raised in her case, or the length Bit'
breadth of the power we are placing in the henw'
of onr medical attendants. It cannot, indeed, be
denied that great wrongs may be inflicted through'
the agency of the quasi-legal proceedings the ver;
diet in this case has confirmed and authorised ;
looking at the question apart from the merits of all
particular case, it presents matter for very serioile
consideration. If persons in a state of deliritoll
tremens require, as they evidently do, to be watched
and restrained as lunatics, it may be asked will
they are not treated under the provisions of the last
of lunacy ? Defective as that law is, it provides a
certain security against the confinement, through
ci
mistake or otherwise, of persons who are sane; and
it might perhaps be possible and convenient to apply
some check, some provision based on principle'
such, for example, as was voluntarily adopted to
Mrs. Symm's case, in the consultation and concur:
rence of three physicians—to meet the evils whine'
could arise from placing such large powers in the
hands of an individual. As the Lord Chief Justice,
observed in the course of his lucid and impartial,
summing up, it is very rarely that we hear el
medical men abusing their privileges; and, as a body,
they eminently merit the public confidence. Never,:
theless, and if only to relieve them as individual'
of a responsibility which is exceedingly moon*
not to say odious, something of this kind might:
we should think, be made a rule of professional
practice. It is highly desirable that the public and
the medical profession should understand each,
other, and, in that sense, good may come out
this trial. We knew before that doctors were evert
day restraining their patients by advice, but it ava'
not, we believe, generally apprehended that they
claimed the right to enforce their directions je
certain cases by personal coercion. We are al e°
inclined to think that the defendants were not quit°
clear on the point themselves, and the absence of
plea of justification, on which the Lord Chi!'
Justice remarked, sustains this impression. It 16
fair, however, to say that Dr. Fraser and Dr'
Andrews stand fully exonerated from all moral "
well as all legal blame. It would have been more
satisfactory if they had obtained the evidence of Mrs'
Taylor, and people generally would have been bet"
ter pleased if they had exercised the power they
claim over a patient to prevent the employment of
a male keeper ; but altogether, and in a case of co r
siderable difficulty, they appear to have acted Wit':
sound reason and remarkable discretion. They eri
also, as regards the hardship of having to defeeo
themselves against the action of a person who h 3
benefited by the treatment she complained of, ell°
titled to the sympathy they will no doubt receivei
If, as we have heard, the costs and damages incurre.
by the defendant in Hall v. Semple were paid by 7
professional subscription, the same course will mos'
likely be pursued in a case where such a testitare
nial has been much better deserved.