The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-26 00:00:00

will forego the claims which they have put for-
ward ; and, according to Lord Russell and his suc-
cessor, there is as little prospect that the English
Government will abandon the position which it
has HOW assumed. But time works wonders.
Already our contemporary, the Times, " looks for-
ward to the time when a joint commission, per-
haps not limited to England and America, shall be
appointed to recast the whole chapter of inter-
national law which treats of neutral rights and
duties." Other journals are disposed to adopt the
same tone. And, indeed, there are unmistakeable
signs that the day must soon arrive when nations
will be compelled to submit their disputes to some
international tribunal before they will consider
themselves justified in enforcing this right by force
of arms. In the meantime it may be useful to state
once more the principles of international law which
Lord Russell and Lord Clarendon have laid down,
and the consequences that must follow from them.
Lord Clarendon distinctly asserts that " the British
Government have steadily and honestly discharged
all the duties incumbent on them as a neutral Power,
and have never deviated from the obligations Wl-
posed on them by international law." It is adulated,
not only by the American but also by the British
Minister, that the existing laws on the British
statute-book are utterly ineffectual to stop the de-
spatch of such ships as the Alabama, the Shenan-
doah, and other cruisers of the like sort. But it is
further maintained by the British Minister, that
although the American statute law contains more
stringent provisions than our own, these provisions
are equally inefficient to stop such expeditions.
is maintained, moreover, by the British Minister,
that although the inefficiency of these statutes has
been demonstrated by the experience of the last
four years, and although the result of the present
state of the law has been that American commerce
has been swept from the seas by the Alabama
and her consorts, the British Government was
under no obligation to improve her statute or
municipal law by rendering its provisions more
stringent, and that by neglecting to do so this
country incurred no liability. It may be presumed
that in the opinion of the British Minister no pro-
positions less extensive than these would suffice to
cover the position of the British Government.
Nevertheless, they are startling propositions ; and
it is but too obvious that if this country were now
at war they would lead to startling consequences.
For what have we done? We have taught the
American and every foreign government that the
measure of a neutral's duty towards a belligerent is
the British Foreign Enlistment Act ; that having
this act on our statute book we are not called upon
as a neutral to do anything more • that a statute
which has been found utterly powerless to prevent
the destruction of American commerce during the
late civil war is the only kind of statute which anY
nation can be called upon to pass or to enforce ;
that all the additional securities which were sup-
posed to be contained in the American statute book
are useless, and that in case of war their provisions
might be repealed or left unenforced, without ex-
posing the American Government to the charge of
neglecting their duties as neutrals. If such are the
principles which are to be applied to the people of
this country when they are next engaged in war, it
is not difficult to anticipate the fate of the British
mercantile navy. Its destruction by cruisers ob-
tained from American ports must be speedy and
complete, and neither the American Government,
nor any .other Government, will be considered re-
sponsible. In short, no new laws need be passed,
and thoSe already in existence are admitted to be
absolutely useless. Such is the conclusion which
follows from the justification of their conduct put
forward by the British Government. But let us
hope that there are some men in Parliament who
will discern the character of this argument. The
common sense of the nation cannot be so hood-
winked. War must be admitted to be always pos-
sible, and to leave questions of such gravity unsol Jed
would be to expose our interests to too serious a
risk. If the argument were worth anything—if the
statutes of England and America are so utterly use-
less—it ought to prove that some change in the
laws of both countries was imperatively needed.
And it seems that Lord Russell, feeling this,
actually suggested to the American Government
the propriety of making some change. It is, how-
ever, idle to make any such suggestion before some
mode of settling the existing disputes upon this very
subject has been agreed to. Indeed, according to
Mr. Adams, this was the very suggestion which the
American Government pressed upon the attention
of the British Government at the commencement of
the civil war. It is the same suggestion which was
then rejected by the British Cabinet. " If," says
Mr. Adams, " the reasons for it are sound now, I
am at a loss to perceive why they did not avail dur-
ing a period when my country could have felt the
benefit of them." To adopt the suggestion now
would be to proceed upon the assumption that the
duties of neutrality ha d phanged their character since
the conclusion of the war. This is obviously absurd.
If the municipal law enforcing these duties ought
to be made more stringent now, it ought to have
been made more stringent before the war closed,
and the Government which declined to take this
course must be responsible for whatever damage has
resulted from its neglect. In other words, the ques-
tion, what are the duties of a neutral? must pre-
cede the question, ought the statute enforcing them
to be altered ? Means should therefore be taken to
ascertain whether during the American civil war
England performed her duty. This can only be
done by referring the matter in dispute to a com-
mission ; and now that Lord Russell and his suc-
cessor have refused to refer the matter, it can orilY
be done by the intervention of Parliament.