The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-20 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.—A Foreign Secretary who has to explain
to merchants that their ships and cargoes are rea-
sonably detained, perhaps lawfully condemned,
must needs have et difficult task. Besides that it is
by no means agreeable to lose oat of hand, with ex-
penses besides, and much insult into the bargain,
what was computed to be worth £lOO,OOO had the
enterprise prospered, the Englishman has a special
difficulty in understanding how this can be accord-
ing to law. Our own law between one British sub-
ject and another, the administration of that law, and
all our legal notions are proudly national. They are
in the spirit of our Constitution, and are supposed,
with good reason, to represent the moral peculiari-
ties of a free and liberal race of men. The indivi-
dual here has a larger measure of liberty than any-
where else in the world—at least, in his relations to
the State; much is left here to public opinion
which elsewhere is rigorously enforced by law ;
everybody is assumed to be innocent till proved to
be guilty ; we give the accused every chance, and
give him an early, quick, and final adjudication.
It is almost needless to add that the tribunal is
without suspicion, and they that enforce the law or
lay it down are faultless and disinterested. When a
Liverpool merchant sends a valuable cargo across
the Atlantic to Nassau or Al atamoi as, he finds him-
self in an entirely new region. The ship is over-
hauled and searched, before even it can be sus-
pected, in quest of possible grounds for suspicion.
When the closest search has not elicited anything
more than grounds for suspicion, the ship is
carried to a port far out of its course, and kept
there any length of time, till the owners,
at great cost and inconvenience, shall have
proved that the ship and the cargo were not somuch
as intended for the blockaded or the belligerent port
in question. If in the opinion of the court the ship
or the cargo were destined for that port, even
though they have only a moral certainty, the ship
and cargo are condemned, end there is an end of
the matter. The owners lose ship and cargo, and
are not a little aggravated. Nothing can be more
contrary to all their notions of law. They have no
respect for the captors, having probably supplied
them, perhaps being still engaged in supplying
them, with munitions of war to any amount. It is
the mere accident of superior force which enforces
the alleged law in one case and secures its syste-
matic infraction in the other. The same belligerent
maintains a strict blockade with the right hand and
holds out the left for contraband of war. It is but
too natural that the British merchant should ex-
pect the scales of justice to be weighted at Key
West. The judgment has been pronounced without
one tangible proof. What is worse than all, the
merchant k news it to be founded on truth, but he
had taken a world of trouble, and gone to great cost
to disguise that truth, and that trouble and that cost
have been all thrown away. But the reason of the
case shows that the law cannot here be framed on
our principle of giving every chance to the accused
and requiring the most absolute proof from the ac-
cuser. The law must be set by the belligerent—
that is, the captors, who lay it down under strong
provocation to stretch the law, but also under great
inducements in the other direction. It is necessary
in their interest to stop the commerce of the enemy.
It is often, as in the present instance, the only way
in which the y can effectually carry on a war which
they believe to be a war for self-preservation. If the
Federals cannot maintain the blockade they have
not a chance, for it is evident they are powerless
on land. The sea alone is their element. It is a fact
patent to all the world that commerce is not stopped,
and the blockade is run continually. Never was
there so much shipping in the Gulf ot Mexico; never
was Nassau so lively ; never had Charleston itself
so brisk a trade. So many ships run the blockade
that it has been suggested there must be some un-
derstanding with the blockading squadron. No
doubt, however, the Government does its best, and
has good reason for so doing so. The American
Prize Courts, then, have good reason to push the
law to an extreme as regards the degree of evidence
on which the ultimate destination of a ship or cargo,
as well as the ownership, are to be proved. When
a man is engaged in mortal conflict he naturally
allows the instinct of self-defence to turn the scale.
On the other hand, the Courts have to consider,
first, that they do not pronounce so decidedly in the
face of facts and of law that they draw another
enemy down upon them ; and, secondly, that what-
ever law they lay down, or whatever precedent they
set, they will one day most assuredly have to accept
from another. The Federals must be well aware
they are fighting our battles as well as their own.
The time may arrive when we shall find ourselves
once more compelled to push to the utmost the rights
of maritime warfare. It will not, then, be safe to
bind ourselves to the doctrine that everything
may be permitted on land, even to the laying
waste of whole provinces, but that the sea is sacred
to commerce and peace, and must not be disturbed.
The sea is our element, and we must be jealous for
its rights, of which we are the chief guardians.
These rights are as much in the interest of political
liberty as of free trade. We will not enter into the
merits of the several cases referred to in the House
of Lords, feeling pretty sure that the unfortunate
owners of the detained ships will have as much
attention and consideration as Lord Russell can
give them without sacrificing the national birth-
right. But there is one remark we beg leave to
make, and we do it because the owners apps ar so
entirely and unaffectedly innocent of the destination
ascribed to their ships and cargoes. It would be in-
teresting to know precisely what these cargoes are,
and whether they are such as would be naturally
sent to the ostensible destination in the ordinary
course of peaceful trade. In the case of a ship
suspected of the intention to run a blockade, it may
be that the cargo is itself very inoffensive, though
still not such as might be expected to be sent to
that part of the world. The character of the freight
must always be a most important element in the
question, and we do not remember to have seen it
stated with any particularity in any of these in-
stances. Indeed, as Lord Russell observed on Mon-
day, the question of fact is at issue, and where
there has been a decision the terms of the judg-
ment are not yet in our possession. England must
consider well and long before she takes up the
quarrel ot a few traders who may be doing
what they know to be substantially contrary
to international amity and law, but who had flat-
tered themselves they were clever enough to cheat
hostile cruisers and Prize Courts. If those Courts
have their opinion, so also have we, and it is
possible we may agree with them in thinking the
cargoes are meant for a more exigent and more
populous community than the inhabitants of Ber-
muda or the Bahamas. We shall not go to war for
a bad case or to avenge the injured innocence
of men engaged in a mercantile lottery. Their
gains we do not grudge. They are welcome
to all they can get by running the blockade.
They have lost their regular trade, and have a
sort of right to try their hand at that which
fortune and war itself offers them. The Fede-
rals cannot impeach its morality. What we ask is
that they shall not drag the British flag into the
question before it is absolutely necessary. It is
good for something better than the protection of
smuggling ; and, after all, blockade-running by neu-
trals is no better. When there is a clear case of
gratuitous wrong, amounting to a national insult
and defiance, then we shall know what to say.
HERALD.—There is nothing more forgotten in
practice, and yet nothing truer. than the position
that the whole civilised world constitutes one great
family. The members may be far apart ; they may
have divided, and even antagonistic, interests for
the time, but no injury can accrue to the one with-
out impairing the fortunes of the others, in some
manner. he relations of mankind in our days are
brought into close connection. Commerce and
diplomacy, intelligence and enterprise, bind them.
Steam and electricity, and the wonderful march of
engineering improvements, make the great capitals
like the leading cities of the same country. We
may be said to look upon the battles of Europe.
Those of America are within a brief reach of us;
and the special correspondent brings the actual facts
in a series of graphic tableaux before our eyes• eiis
s
nearer intercommnication of modern society presses
on us with a heavy responsibility. There is
no)r fair
excuse now for apathy. In former ages the lands
were isols ted. The sea was dissociable, and forbade
communion. There was just and natural reason for
a selfish neutrality. The term however muc
in vogue now, does not belong ; a humane and
Christian vocabulary. It is bruotal to stand by
and see brothers tear each other's throats ; and
the nations of Europe cannot escape this censure.
We do not for the moment say that intervention
between power and power is always wise and
politic. But we contend that the necessity, if any,
for abstention, is barbarous, and must weigh as a
sin against a civilised epoch. The struggle taking
place now in America has every point to command
our sympathy and pacific interference. It is before
us. We cannot shut our eyes from it. Day by day
messengers arrive with such a lively picture
of the
whole conflict that we know more of its scenes and
actors than we do of the affairs of our own country.
Our best interests are concerned in the cessation of
this quarrel. Its Continuance is silently revolution-