The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-18 00:00:00

Every gentleman who took part in the discussion in the
House of Commons last night, every one who has given the
subject of that discussion a moment's reflection, admits the
vast importance of the interests it involves. The course
which his Majesty's Government may feel it their duty to
adopt, in consequence of the negociations respecting the
seizure of the Via-en, may possibly involve this country in
hostilities with Russia. We at once admit that an escape
from this result should not be purchased by the slightest
sacrifice of national interest or national honour ; but, on
the other hand, is it prudent, is it patriotic, is it the part of
wise or good citizens to attempt to drive the country to
an issue which it may possibly avoid without .loss or
without disgrace? No good purpose can be attained
by mixing up the question of the seizure of the Vixen with
new and doubtful doctrines of international law, with which
it is in nowise connected. The case for the considera-
tion of the Government is simply this : a British ship has
been seized—her cargo confiscated—her crew imprisened.
Was this act justifiable ? Is it not manifest that
before this question can be answered we must know
what is the pretext under which the seizure has
been made ? Is it not the duty of our Government to ask
for explanations upon this subject ? If the answer they re-
ceive be that the Vixen violated a blockade, the whole matter,
we apprehend, could be brought to a speedy and satisfacs
tory termination. No blockade was notified to our Govern-
ment : therefore it did not exist de jure. From all the
concurrent accounts, we know it did not exist de facto.
Under this pretext, then, the seizure is so manifestly unjust
that the Russian Government, we feel assured, would not
even attempt to defend it. This, which is the most desir-
able, may be the possible, result. Would any Minister of
the Crown be justified in adopting a course that might de-
feat this object, at the very moment it was within his reach ?
Yet it was this which Mr. Roebuck asked Lord Pal-
merston to do last night. A great country like this
is more particularly bound to be governed by a scru-
pulous adherence to the recognised principles of inter-
national law, and to avoid whatever carries with it an ap-
pearance of relying on our force, rather than the
justice of our cause. Powerful as we are, we cannot afford
to be unjust. Mr. Roebuck may be quite correct in the
view that be takes of the Russian power, which has been
foolishly exaggerated by people very imperfectly acquainted
with the true mode of estimating the relative strength of
countries ; but if in any collision with Russia we gave that
State the advantage of resting her cause on the acknow-
ledged law of nations, the moral aid she would thence de-
rive might balance our physical superiority. It is one of
the blessings of the times in which we live, that the Go-
vernments of Europe are much more sensible than they
used to be of the danger of a general war ; and we have
no doubt that they would take part with the nation that
shall be found to have justice on its side. Mr. Roebuck's
principles of international law were untenable, and his re-
ference to the example.of America was not borne out by
facts. " The first thing," said the Hon. Member for
Bath, " the Americans do when the trade of America
is attacked, is to send a ship of war to protect it.
They do not content themselves with firing off a battery
of protocols—they do not talk about their rights ; they en-
force them." So far is this from being the case, that the
Amhricans suffered much from France as well as from Eng-
land duriug the last war ; and though they never ceased
to complain of the wrongs they had suffered, but perse-
vered in demanding redress till they obtained it, yet the
patience of the Government was throughout conspicuous.
The same thing may be said with regard to the disputes
between America and Spain, which terminated in the ces-
sion of Florida. The Americans, indeed, have always dis-
played signal forbearance in their relations with foreign
States, and have never shown a disposition to recur to force,
so long as a hope remained that. an adversary might, by
other means, be brought to reason. The great importance
of the question to which the seizure of the Vixen has
given rise, was admitted on all hands—by Lord Pal-
merston as well as by Mr. Roebuck. Under any recog-
nised law of blockade the Vixen (as we have a!ready
stated) could not justifiably be seized ; and as to
the other ground of smuggling, this supposes Russia
to have a right to the territory on the coast of which the
Vixen was seized. But Lord Palmers.ton expressly de-
clared to the House, that " Russia, at the time she was
commencing her war with Turkey, did. voluntarily enter
into an engagement, by a declaration to the whole of
Europe, by which she bound herself, as mach as a volun-
tary declaration can be considered binding on any Power,
that let the result of the war with Turkey be what it
would, in no case should she look to any acquisition of
territory ;" and his Lordship agreed with the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bath in opinion, that " the extension of the Rus-
sian frontier on the mouth of the Danube, the south of
the Caucasus, and the shores of the Black Sea, is not
consistent with the solemn declaration made by Russia in
the face of Europe previous to the commencement of the
Turkish war." Whether, then, Turkey had or had not the
right to the territory which it ceded, it is clear that Russia
had not the right to accept the cession. There is a well-known
anecdote, somewhat in point, of a Prussian soldier accused of
stealing a valuable diamond from an image of the Virgin in
Breslau cathedral, who in his defence stated that the
Virgin had made him a present of it. The question having
been gravely put to the Doctors of the Church whether
the Virgin could make a present, they were posed ; but
Frederick settled the matter by declaring that his soldiers
should not be allowed to receive presents from such a high
quarter. Russia will perceive, from the tone of the debate,
that, should the necessity arrive, there will be no indisposi-
tion on the part of Parliament to support the .Government
in the course which it may be expedient to pursue. There
are limits to forbearance. War is .a great evil ; and we
fervently hope that it may be avoided, by a disposition on
the part of Russia as well as England to be governed
by the sound principles of justice. But should Russia
make one injustice, namely, the violation of her
pledges to Europe, implied in the Treaty of
Adrianople, the ground for committing another, she will
find that England, however forbearing, will not be awanting
in the will and the power to do herself justice. The eyes
of all Europe are steadily fixed upon both parties. Par-
liament and the nation will not abet Ministers, should it
be found that they have been unreasonah!e in their de-
mands ; but, on the other hand, if we have justice on our
side, all Europe will look on us in the light of benefactors,
by our vindicating the principles of international law and
resenting unjustifiable aggressions. Russia has hitherto
contrived to watch her opportunities for aggressions on her
neighbours ; but on this occasion, if she should determine
on asserting rights to which she has no title, _ she will come
into collision with a very different power from any of those
which she has hitherto wronged. England is not like Po-
land, or Turkey, or Sweden.—Morning Chronicle.

The actual condition in which the Ministerial measure of
Church robbery has been placed by the division of last
Wednesday and the full persuasion entertained by every
man in the community that the division alluded to, and the
brilliant majority of three-and-twenty, have been fatal to
any Bill which could have been founded on Mr. Spring
Rice's resolution, render it no longer necessary for us, or
indeed for anybody, to re-argue the question on its general
principles. If the Whig Ministers have so little knowledge
of the state of parties in both Houses of Parliament, and of
the predominant feeling throughout the country, as to risk
any further experiment on the popularity of the " voluntary
principle," or on the intrinsic power of the Church of
England, they will not much improve their present pros-
pects, or clear away the forebodings of their speedy
dissolution. They will, therefore, sacrifice this attack
upon the Church, or do worse. There are one or
two points, nevertheless, of which the bearing is not
confined to the Resolution lately before the House
of Commons, but which have reference to quer-
tions of political character, and of the existing law,
and which it may, therefore, be desirable, however briefly,
to touch upon. For days together the Radical prints were
exulting at what they assumed to be the " inconsistency"
of Lord Stanley, and were boasting of the great good for-
tune which had befallen the Rump Ministers from having
caught that formidable nobleman in a sort of cleft stick,
inasmuch as his Lordship had supported the Church Tem-
poralities Bill for Ireland, which they (his wise assailants)
pronounced to be identical with this new piece of Ministe-
r►al quackery for the breaking down of the English Church.
The fame of Lord Stanley is precious to all those who
build their hopes of future salvation for England on the ho-
nour and high principle of her Statesmen. Hear, then,
Lord Stanley himself upon this pretended identity of the
Irish measure which he introduced, and the English mea-
sure, which he so strenuously opposes, and then consider
in what a plight he leaves his unfortunate calumniators.
The Temporalities Act for Ireland, it is true, abolished
Church-cess in that island ; but amongst other grounds
of difference which distinguished the case of the Irish
measure from the present, a great majority of those upon
whom the Church-cess was levied were excluded by law,
on account of their religion, from voting in vestry upon the
imposition of the rate. 2d. There existed in Ireland an
ecclesiastical fund, subject by law to the particular charge
of Church-cess. The first fruits, by the law of Ireland,
though not by that of England, were actually liable to the
maintenance and repair of the fabrics of the Church. By
the Temporalities Act, the fund called first fruits, as well
as the auxiliary charge of Church-cess, was extinguished,
and a tax on benefices, equal to the exigency, which the
first fruits had not been, was imposed. Here, therefore, no
innovation in pincipk could be alleged against Lord
Stanley's Bill, which merely rendered Church property
available for a purpose to which, in another form, it
hial been always legally liable, though not burdened
to the extent which the law contemplated, and which
the wants of the Church itself required. There
was no furtive or smuggled introduction of the
" voluntary prinoiple " under another name.. The re-