The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TimEs.—The Prussian Chambers have been closed.
The King sides with his Ministers ; they possess his
confidence, and their actions have his assent. Before
the people show by their action whether the Minis-
ters also possess their confidence, it may be well to say
a few words on the principle involved in this struggle.
The constitutional crisis in' Prussia will remind
English readers of more than one passage in the
history of their, own revolutions. A grave political
question is made to turn on a cempatatively
unim-
porraut point of form. The dispute between the
Ministers of the Crown and the Representatives of
the people concerns on its face only the rules of
procedure in the Chamber, but it involves in reality
the distribution of power between King and Parlia-
ment. In all these cases, however, the ostensible
question acquires an extraordinary importance, be-
cause the battle must be fought on that ground at
first, and much therefore depends upon the judg-
ment with which a particular issue has been selected.
It happens that in Prussia the question was forced
accidentally and unexpectedly upon the Deputies
by the conduct of a Minister, and they had hardly
a choice but to accept the trial. Fortunately they
find themselves on strong grouud, and in a position
which we in this country must regard as unassailable.
In Prussia, according to the provisions of the Con-
stitution, the Ministers of the Crown, though not
members of Parliament, are entitled to enter either
of the two houses and to be heard upon their de-
mand. This is no unprecedented arrangement, and
if it falls short of our own views on such subjects we
must remember that Constitutions are the growth
of years. There is no dispute in the Prussian case
about the actual privilege of Ministers, but only
about the conditions on which that privilege is to
be exercised. The Parliament holds that a Minister
of the Crown can certainly demand to address the
House like any one of its own members, but that he
must be subject, like such members, to the rules
framed by tue House for the regulation of its own
proceedings. The Cabinet maintains that a Minis-
ter is not only independent of the electoral consti-
tuencies, but of the rules and forms of the House
itself ; that he is not merely on the footing of a
member for the time being, but above it ; and that
he can not only demand to enter the House and ad-
dress it, but can do so in contempt of all the regu-
lations by which the members themselves are bound.
Accordingly when, at the beginning of the present
month, Gen. Boon, the Minister of War, was called
to order by the President, he flatly repudiated
all obligation to obedience, and declared in
plain terms that the authority, as we should
say, of the Speaker stopped short of the table
at which the Ministers of the Crown appeared. The
issue was raised with the utmost boldness and de-
cision. No question was made about particular
circumstances. The Minister laid down the broad
principle applicable to all cases and on all occasions.
" I say," said he, "that the President's authority
extends up to this table and no further." That is
the state iu which the question is left. Now, in this
country, if there is one point of constitutional doc-
trine more universally accepted than another, it is
that very point which the Prussian Ministers have
ventured to assail. Our proceedings, even in the
most trivial matters, are modelled upon Parliamen-
tary forms. We do nothing without a " meet-
ing." At every meeting the first and indis-
periable proceeding is to elect a chairman,
and that chairman's authority is absolutely in-
violable. To his decision even the most lawless
unhesitatingly defer, and the unanimity with which
everybody is always prepared to " support the
Chair," bespesks a kind of instinct in our political
nature. That any man should address any formally
constituted assembly and reject the authority of its
President appears to us almost unintelligible, and
our practice is certainly based on sound principles.
No assembly can work without rules for the conduct
of its business, and the application and enforcement
of those rules must be left to the presiding autho-
rity. This is so clear that it seems to pass argument,
but the Prussian Ministers have found something to
say for their pretensions. They argue that as
Ministers are entitled by the provisions of the
Conetitution to enter and address either House of
Parliament, the claim of the President to call
them to order is in violation of thoseprovisions.
If they are to be "subject to his disciplinary power"
at all, they must be subject to it altogether, and
consequently they may be reduced to silence by his
authority in spite of their acknowledged right to
speak and be heard. It seems almost idle to discuss
such reasoning as this. A right to speak does not
and cannot imply a right to speak in defiance of
order. It is simply a right to speak according to the
vales of the assembly before which the speech is de-
livered. Every deputy returned to the Prussian
Chamber by the votes of the people has a right of
speech, which must certainly be asgood as that of the
King's Ministers, and yet no deputy would hold his
rights invaded by the claim of the President to re-
gulate his speaking. The position of Ministers in
the House is independent of the votes of the people,
but it cannot be independent of rules of the assem-
bly. They cannot be more than members—in fact,
they are members for special purposes. They are so
far privileged that they can enter Parliament and
take part in its debates without being sent by the
people, but they are not privileged to defy the rules
by which the business of the House is conducted.
No assembly could conduct its business at all if any
persons taking part in that business could insist on
the rights of membership without acknowledging
its duties. The extreme case to which the Minis-
terial argument reduces the question is simply an
absurdity. The competence of a President to "im-
pose silence" on a Minister can be nothing more or
less than his competence to "impose silence" on any
or all the members of the House together. Of course,
when pushed to the utmost, the authority of the
President can stop a debate or adjourn the Assembly,
but that authority was never yet held to
if
the right of speaking. The Prussian Deputies f they
pleased, might borrow this argument, and maintain
that the claims of Ministers to speak when and how
they pleased without interruption from the Presi-
dent were in detriment of the rights of speech un-
doubtedly possessed by members ; but the argument
is puerile in any shape. It is a self-evident doctrine
that the right of speech in any assembly, whether
of ordinary or extraordinary members, is conditional,
and that such right receives no carnage from being
subjected to rules reasonably framed for the conduct
of business. We have preferred to consider this
question as one of principle only, and we therefore
make no inquiry into the merits of the case on which
the question was raised. It will have been seen,
however, from the Address of the House to the
King, which we published two days ago, as well
as from the King's answer and the closing of
the Chamber, that the Deputies have now passed
beyond the ostensible dispute, and have entered
without reserve into those questions which both

parties know to be at the bottom of the quarrel.
The Address informs the King that " between the
Councillors of the Crown and the country there
exists a chasm which cannot be filled up otherwise
than by a change of persons, and still more by a
enange of system." The King replie9 " that he
sides with his Ministers," These words express the
reality of the matter. The difference between Ge-
neral Boon and the President would never have pro-
duced this rupture if there had not been a standing
difference of far greater moment between the Minis-
ters and the Chamber. General Roon's demand to
be disorderly was but of a piece with the general
demands of Ministers to govern the country without
the intervention of Parliament. His claim to be in-

dependent of the authority of the President and the
rules of the House did but express incidentally
the pretensions of himself and his colleagues to

subordinate the Representatives of the country to
the nominees of the Crown. So the great issue was

suddenly accepted, probably without design on either
side, and we now witness the spectacle of a King
and a Parliament brought into direct collision.
Ministers refuse to attend the sittings of the House
except on condition of being placed above its rules.
The House not only refuses to proceed to business
without the attendance of the Ministers, but now
demands a change of Ministry in terms as plain as
could be used by our own House of Commons. The
King refuses to yield, identifies himself with his
Ministers, and closes the Chamber, thereby showing
his determination to try to govern without any
Parliament at all. That is the state of affairs in
Prussia. The friends of constitutional freedom can
have but one wish for the result, but every lover of
peace and order will regret that the matter has been
allowed to come to the present pass.
HERALD.—" In the case of the prize vessel
Springbok the judge of the New York District Court
has decided that where a vessel is suspected of car-

rying contraband goods, even if she had not at-
tempted to run the blockade, her cargo may be ex-
amined...to determine whether it is contraband or

not." We will grant to Lord Russell everything
he can claim in regard to this most important item
of the late news from America. We will admit
that the newspaper report may be inaccurate, and,
by the omission of some essential particulars, may
give a false colouring to the judicial decision above
quoted, though it is difficult to understand how this
can be. We will grant to him that the decision
may possibly be reversed on appeal ; though we
have little reason, judging from the well known
character of American tribunals, and from the pre-
sent behaviour of the Federal Government, to be-
lieve that anything of the kind will be done. But
we must ask leave to insist on two points—first,
that so monstrous a decision never could have been
given by any court entitled to the least regard or re-
spect at the hands of foreign Powers ; that the mere
fact that such a sentence has escaped the lips. of any
Federal judge would be sufficient to discredit him,
his brethren, and the Government which appointed

him, and to render it necessary for neutral Govern-
ments to take stringent precautions for the protection
of their subjects from the injustice which they are
certain to suffer at the heeds of courts so contemp-
tuous or so ignorant of the law which it is their
duty to administer; and, secondly, that no American
court would have dared so flagrantly to outrage the
law of nations and the rights of neutrals if the
Foreign Secretary of England had been true to his
duty ; it he had not encouraged outrage by his care-
ful avoidance of all plainspoken declarations on
poiets of lay.: repeatedly brought under his notice,
in Patliament and elsewhere; and if he had not
induced the Federal Goserntueut and the people of
he Northern States to believe that England is dis-
posed tamely to endure any violation of her rights
which may snit the convenience of the former or
gratify the malignant passions of the latter. It, is
the moral sveahriess, the official cowardice of Lord
Russell, which is nuswerable for all the loses that
English commerce has suffered from the unscrupu-
lous aggressions of Federal cruisers and the unprin-
cipled and shameless partiality of Federal prize
courts. It is to this cause that we must attribute
the fact that English merchants find it necessary to
resort to the protection of the French flag; that
heavy war insurances are effected on ships sailing
for Nassau or Matamoros ; that our commerce with
our West Indian possessions is carried on subject
to the risks and humiliations of a smuggling
trade ; that Mr. Adams dares to denounce the bulk
of our communications with Mexico as fraudulent,
and to grant licences to such portion of that
trade as, for American purposes, he deems it wise
to tolerate; and that such decisions as that just
delivered in the case of the Springbok are possible.
The meaning of that decision is simply this—that
whether or no a neutral vessel be bound for a
neutral port the mere fact of her having on
board a cargo which, from its character, seems
likely to be destined for the Confederate States,
shall be sufficient to justify her condemnation in a
Federal court ; for unless the presence of contra-
band on board would cause her condemnation
there could be neither right nor motive to ascertain
the fact. It is the decision of this court—the most
important prize court in the United States—that no
British ship shall carry to a neutral port goods of
such a nature that, if bound for an enemy's port,
they would fall under the description of contraband
of war. To enable our readers to understand the
full effect of such a decree we may remind them
that medicines have been declared by the Federalists
to be contraband of war, and therefore if a vessel be
carrying medical stores to Jamaica or Havannah,
she would, under this rule, be liable to7confiscation
for the benefit of Admiral Wilkes and his squadron.
Nay, more, it would be within the scope of the de-
cision to condemn a vessel carrying such stores for
India or China, for in the eye of the law there is
no difference whatever between a voyage to a neu-
tral port within ten miles of the enemy's territory
and a voyage to one ten thousand miles away. It
is not necessary to repeat the arguments by which
we have often demonstrated the utter illegality of
the pretensions involved in this audacious dictum.
No lawyer would dream of upholding them. But
it is our wish to insist on the very important fact
that, in the present position of the American belli-
gerents, there is no case in which the question of
contraband of war can possibly be raised. Goods
going to a neutral port cannot come under the de-
scription of contraband, all trade to such ports being
equally lawful. A cargo of arms and munitions of
war shipped to Matamoras is not, so far as the Fe-
deralists are concerned, contraband. In regard to
the war between North and South,Mexico is a neu-
tral country, and we have a right to sell to Mexi-
cans, or to residents in Mexico, whatever they are
pleased to buy. With their intention in buying, or
ours in selling, the Federal Government courts and
cruisers have no concern. The arms and ammuni-
tion sold to Mexico may be destined to destroy
Frenchmen at Puebla, or Yankees on the Potomac ;
but in neither case is the Federal power entitled to
stop them on their way to Mexico. The same holds
good in regard to Nassau with even greater force; for
Nassau is a British port, and to seize a British ship
bound thither from London is precisely the same
thing as to seize a ship trading between Li verpool
and Dublin. It is perfectly true that a ship nomi-
nally sailing for one of these ports may be really on
her way to Charleston or Mobile, and in that case
no one disputes the right of the Federalists to seize
and confiscate both vessel and cargo. But this is
not the case contemplated by the New York decision,
for in this case the vessel would be, in point of in-
ternational law, " attempting to run the blockade."
And if the vessel is really bound to a neutral port,
it is a physical, moral, legal impossibility that she
should have on board that which does not in such
case exist. Cannon, rifles, sabres, munitions of war,
she may have. She may be laden to the deck with
them ; but contraband of war she can by no possi-
bility be carrying, even though the port for which
she is bound were separated from a strong Confede-
rate port only by a ditch six feet wide. Let us ask,
by the way, whether we should tolerate the con-
demnation of a British vessel by a Confederate court
on the ground that she was carrying arms and stores
to Quebec, which might possibly be there sold to the
Yankees? But if there can in no case be contra-
band of war on board a vessel really bound for a
neutral port, what is the case in regard to a vessel
really bound for a Confederate port, though her
nominal destination may be neutral P This point,
as we have seen, is not raised by the New York
judgment, which has reference to vessels not at-
tempting to break the blockade ; but it deserves our
careful attention, as bearing on the question of con-
traband generally. It is quite clear that arms, am-
munition, probably provisions and naval stores, and
by a forced construction of law, medicines also, would
on board such a vessel be contraband of war. But it
would not signify a jot to any party concerned
whether they were contraband or not. The Federal
Government claims to have blockaded the whole Con-
federate coast; and that claim has been tacitly ad-
mitted by England. So long as the validity of the
blockade is acknowledged, all vessels, whatever their
cargoes, which are intending to break that block-
ade, are liable to capture and confiscation, with
everything on board. In this case, therefore, the
question of contraband has no significance. Either,
then, a vessel is bound to a neutral port, in which
case she is free, whatever she carries—or she is
bound to an enemy's port, and the enemy's ports
being now under blockade, she is liable to confisca-
tion, whatever the nature of her cargo. By raising,
therefore, the question of contraband the Federal
courts at once proclaim their intention to overstep
the law. We cannot allow any weight to the plea
that the carriage of arms and munitions of war to
Nassau and Matamoras, thence to be transmitted as

favourable opportunities may occur to Charleston
or Galveston, is an exceedingly provoking act, and
that we ought, therefore, to be lenient to the Fede-
ral cruisers, when, in the excess of their irritation,
they transgress the letter of international law. The

law is already highly favourable to belligerents,
giving them rights over neutral trade which are
extremely inconvenient and oppressive ; and it is
our right and duty as neutrals to see that bellige-
rent privileges are not extended against us beyond
the limits which we ourselves, when at war, held
ourselves bound to acknowledge and respect. Again,
looking at the matter from the point of neutral
freedom, the law of capture is a penal law, a law in
restriction of liberty, and must therefore be con-
structed strictly. It is out of the question to allow
to the United States the exercise of powers which
no other maritime belligerent ever dared to claim,
or to permit them, by the vexatious use of their ad-
. .

mined rights, to inflict greater injuries on our com-
merce than thosa which, by the strict letter of the
law, are incident to the condition of neutrals in
time of war. If the liberties which are fairly ours
are proVoking to them, they must endure the pro-
vocation as best they may, remembering how long
we had to endure much worse from them ; if, in the

frenzy of their irritation, they violate our rights,
it is the duty of our Government to exact iredress,

first by gentle remonstrance, than by peremptory
demands, and lastly, if driven to that extremity,
by war. But to wrong, whether committed by a
uiser or a prize court, we cannot submit ; and the
Minister whose policy is submission is not fit to
represent the nation or to have in his keeping the
honour of England,

POST.—However strongly the sufferings of the
Poles may have enlisted in their favour the sympa-
thies of the public of this country, there can be no
doubt that those who direct its policy are not in a
position to confine themselves to the purely humani-
tarian view of the question. We do not wonder that
the Western Powers should have entertained the
idea of proposing to the National Government at
Warsaw an armistice, in the hope that, should hos-
tilities cess9, some arrangements might be come to
at a congress at which Russia should be induced to
accord terms sufficiently liberal to satisfy the popu-
lations in revolt. Such a proposition has, we un-
derstand, been actually made. We are not as yet
aware in what spirit it has been received by those
to whom it has been addressed. That Russia would

gladly consent to a cessation of hostilities in the
kingdom of Poland we have little doubt, but she
would certainly not consider herself bound to take
any course of action in the province that should
have the appearance of 'having been forced upon
her by foreign dictation. Any proposi-,1 emanating
from the Government of this country, and addressed
to the National Government at Warsaw, implies
that that body is in a position to treat with a fo-
reign Power, and should therefore be entitled to
accredit its official agents in return, and to claim the
right of recognition, at least, as a belligerent. It is
not likely that the National Government will con-
sent to receive any semi-official communication from
a foreign minister, except as a preliminary
step to
its recognition. We have never, in the case of the
Southern States of America, held any direct inter-