The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-07 00:00:00

THE SUN..

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEB. 7, 1862.

The debate on the address was necessarily one
marked by an almost solemn unanimity. The
speakers felt what the country felt with them, that
in perusing that debate, her MAJESTY might na-
turally expect that no party differences should jar
upon her own feelings. If she be supposed to take
no notice of the discussions of the Houses on the
business presented for her consideration, it were
yet straining fiction to absurdity even tc
suppose she did not read last night's debate.
Every one felt that he was speaking, as it were, in
the house of mourning, and all the necessary ad-
vertence to public business was characterised by a
tone of expression which harmonised with the
public sorrow all felt themselves required to re-
present. The Speech itself, and, of course,
the Address, furnished indeed no topic on
which party feeling coull well lay hold, bat there
was not the disposition to introduce such topics.
The Opposition speeches, the most important on
this occasion, had but two chief subjects to express
—their sense of the value of the Prince they had
lost, and the excellent conduct of the Government
in reference to America.

The Washington Cabinet will certainly learn
from the debate the entire unanimity of the great
British parties, as well as of the public, in regard
to the act of which they were guilty, and they will
learn something more. They will learn that those
members of the press who insisted on the want
of dignity shown by Mr. SEWARD in detaining the
prisoners after he knew that the capture was
illegal, are in entire accord with our alternate
Premier, Lord D. ERBY, and doubtless with the Go-
vernment itself. Ministers could not well say in their
position what Lord DERBY could and did say in his,
that the American Government had not acted on
the principle which is recognised as honourable
between all gentlemen—that of making immediate
reparation as soon es we are convinced that we have
injured another :—" Applying the principle to na-
t'ons, I cannot but express my deep regret that
when the American Secretary of State was con-
vinced, as he was long before the termination of these
negotiations, that the capture was illegal, he should
have kept the persons captured for a considerable
time in all the rigours of a not very merciful im-
prisonment, and that he not only hesitated to grant
the reparation which in honour and in justice was
due—l am speaking, of course, of the American
Government in general—but should have sanc-
tioned language which was wholly unwarranted
by facts, and permitted impressions to go abroad
calculated to excite the most bitter animosity
between the people of the two countries. Lastly,
I think it greatly to be regretted that, having
made up his mind that reparation and apology
were necessary, the American Secretary of State
should have waited until the formal demand was
made, not privately, but officially and formally,
thus waiting not to consider how much reparation
he should give, but how small a measure of repa-
ration would satisfy the imperative demands of
Great Britain. By the course which.they pursued
the Federal Government have placed themselves
and their people in an undignified and an unworthy
position, and have shown that they apologised not
from a sense of justice, but on a demand backed by
force, and that they only gave the reparation
we asked for because they knew that this
country would be satisfied with nothing less."
We cannot doubt that her MAJESTY'S Government
agreed with every word uttered by the noble lord,
although with Mr. DisnAeu, under the circum
stances,
they desired to put the most generous and
liberal construction on
thieiFheedtewraol
leadersGTov.
o:yernment
all the words and deeds of
seemed not willing to
pass over too lightly the subject of the blockade.
evidently, that it was
it here was some suspicion
hardly an effective one from a legal point of view.
It was mentioned that on this subject the fullest