The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Fenian Conspiracy is a seasonable
treat to many of the good friends of England. It
elevates them to the position of serene spectators,
or magnanimous neutrals, and enables them to
preach return-sermons on national duties and poli-
tical rights. Russia thinks that the Fenian .
move-
ment is the exact counterpart of the insurrection in
Poland, with the fortunate exception for us that
foreign Powers are not assuming to meddle in our
affairs. The Americans regard the movement as
precisely similar to the rebellion of the Southern
States, and a New York journal observes that if
America were but to give the Fenians the same
support as was given to the Confederates by Eng-
land the British Empire would be shaken to its
foundations. Of course this was only what we had
to expect, and, truth to say, we can well afford to
take it all in good part. In fact, we don't mind
confessing that we look out for these reflections with
a kind of malicious complacency. We think we
make a pretty good show compared with either
America or Russia, and that we are getting
.over
our little difficulty a great deal easier than either
one or the other of those two Countries. But our
friends in America are a little precipitate in striking
a balance between our " neutrality" and theirs. The
cases are really not parallel, and we should have
greater reason for complaint than they had if we
chose to be angry or inconsiderate. No American
ever pretended, or could pretend, that England or
Englishmen had the slightest share in the origina-
tion of the Southern rebellion. It was an American
scheme from beginning to end, conceived in Ame-
rica and confined to America. In the great four
years' war which ensued we quietly recognised what
could not be dissembled, and we gave free scope to
our private sympathies. But beyond this we were
absolutely neutral, and it was, indeed, this simple
and genuine neutrality which gave the Federals so
much offence. They thought "neutrality" an un-
becoming attitude, considering that they represented
a Sovereign Power in amity with this country,
while on the other side there were none but insur-
gents in arms, representing no legitimate Govern-
ment whatever. That was the sum total of our na-
tional offending, for none know better than the
Americans themselves how impossible it is for the
government of a free country to control the private
adventures of all its citizens. Both sides bought
arms of us according to the uniform practice in such
cases, but whereas one side commenced the contest
with a firm reliance on our ultimate intervention,
that-confidence was utterly disappointed. We kept
ourselves as free and as far from the strife as we
possibly could, nor do the Americans now charge
us with any offence beyond misplaced sympathies
and perverted opinions. Compare with this
the part taken by Americans in the pre-
sent movement in Ireland. The Fenian Con-
spiracy was a plot for subverting the dominion
of the Queen in Ireland, wresting that island from
the British Empire, and transforming it into an
independent State under a republican government.
This plot was hatched in America by American
citizens. The conspirators may have been mostly of
Irish extraction, but they were actually citizens of
the United States. The " Constitution " of the
" Brotherhood," as defined and described at the
last Fenian Congress held at Cincinnati in January,
makes open proclamation of this fact. The league,
it says, "is composed, in the first place, of citizens
in the United States. of America of Irish birth and
lineage,". and. ." its head-quarters are, and shall be
within. the limits of the United States of America."
This is plain speaking, and the acts of the con-
spirators. have been in conformity with their words.
Americans have furnished for the last two years the
whole of the funds required for the furtherance of
the plot in Ireland. They have promised to provide
the raw companies of harebrained shopboys with
trained officers and materials of war. Instalments
of these succours have actually arrived ; and the ex-
amination of the prisoners has conclusively proved
that the entire " organisation if so it may be called,
in Ireland drew its shape, strength, vitality, and
importance from the original organisation 'in
America. It was in evidence on Tuesday last that
Stephens, the (4 captain of all the Fenians " in Ire_

land, was allowed, while in America last year, to pass
along the lines of the Federal army in Tennessee
for the purpose of enlisting soldiers for the Irish re-
bellion. We are not going to found any complaint
on these facts, but facts they are, and we submit
that they amount to a great deal more than the
neutrality which we maintained during the Ameri-
can war. It is true, and we acknowledge it with
great satisfaction, that the American Government has
behaved with all honourable loyalty in the matter,
and that it is not to be suspected of even indirectly
countenancing these extravagant proceedings. We
believe that it would willingly see them stopped,
and we can understand the considerations by which
its action in that direction may be restrained. But
that does not affect the actual cDntrast between the
two cases. Whatever mischief there may be in
Fenianism—and fortunately there is not much—can
be directly ascribed to the organised and systematic
proceedings of citizens of the United States. 'The
Fhole scheme is nothing but a filibustering plot for
seizing one of the British Islands by a military force
organized and supported from America, and plant-
ing American institutions in the captured country.
No sane American could contend that the proceed-
ings of Englishmen during the Civil War bore any
resemblance to these. We should have a perfect
right to say, if we chose to do so, that the Fenian
movement owed its origin to America exclusively,
but as we recognize the good faith of the United
States' Government, and as we can happily well
afford to be indifferent on the point, we advance no
such charge. Fenianism is not a product that any
people would be proud of, and if the Irish in
America must needs bring their delusions to the
test of experiment, they could hardly have done so
with less harm to us or more discomfiture to them-
selves. Perhaps it was hardly necessary to assure
us that no native-born Americans are answerable
for the devices of the scheme. They betray the
genuine Irish mind throughout. The notion that a
hundred thousand American Fenians could come
over here in parties of five, with arms for two hun-
dred thousand more in their portmanteaus, could
tumble into their places in an armynever previously
mustered, and could conduct this force to a success-
ful encounter with one of the most powerful Govern-
ments in the world, is purely Irish in its extrava-
gance. It could never have commended itself to
the practical acuteness of Yankee brains. We fully
believe the Americans when.they tell us who are the
Fenians. We recognize the Irish band even in the
New York journals, and we need not, we are certain,
assure any native-born citizen of the States that the
British Empire is not going to be " rocked to its
foundations" by anything the Chicago " Brother-
hood" can do or devise. It is so easy for us to be
good-tempered under the circumstances that we take
no great credit for our forbearance ; but still the
conspiracy was an abominable one in its design,
and it cannot consist with international usages
that such a plot should be openly matured
against one country on the soil and by the citi-
zens of another. Ridiculous and abortive as the
seheme has proved, the damage to Ireland is never-
theless very serious. Though public order has been
undisturbed, public confidence has been undermined,
and the tranquillity which had been recently pre-
vailing, and which is indispensable to Irish pros-.
perity, may be banished for too long a time. We
trust, however, that the ignominious collapse of the
conspiracy and the proved hopelessness of the device
may teach wisdom and prudence even to Irishmen
in America, and divert them in future from designs
which can end in nothing better than discomfiture.

POST.—The issue raised in the voluminous corre-
spondence between Mr. Adardts and the Foreign Secre-
tary, which has just appeared in the Gazette, is a
very simple one, and diplomatists alone, perhaps,
would be enabled to explain the necessity for wrap-
ping in such a cloud of verbiage what in fact lies
within the compass of a very small nutshell.
During the progress of the late civil war the mer-
chant shipping of the Federal States suffered no
little damage at the hands of vessels which were
built in English ports, equipped on the high seas,
and which were commanded by natives of the Con-
federate States duly commissioned by the Confede-
rate Government. For the damage so occasioned
the American Minister, in the name of his Go-
vernment, seeks to make this country respgnsible,
and the Foreign Secretary, on his side, as repre-
senting the English Government, disavows the
liability sought to be cast upon it. The simple
question, therefore, is to determine on which side
justice lies, and, as the subject appears to have been
thoroughly exhausted by the two disputants in the
correspondence before us, we shall proceed to con-
sider the arguments respectively adduced by each
in order to assist us in coming to a decision. The
case on the part of the American Government may
be briefly stated thus. The English Government
acted with precipitation in acknowledging the
Confederates as belligerents before they had a single
vessel afloat, and by so doing gave them a status
which enabled them to create in English ports that
naval force which was subsequently employed with
so much success against American merchant shipping.
The only vessels used by the Confederate Government
in a belligerent capacitywere constructed and equipped
in British ports. The English Government, though
expressing the greatest desire to prevent their ports
being made points of departure of vessels intended
to be employed against a friendly Power, failed to
carry their intentions into effect through the ineffi-
ciency of the law, and declined to apply to the Le-
gislature for more complete powers. That, in con-
quence of the premises, a large number of vessels
and a vast amount of property belonging to Ame-
rican citizens were destroyed, and many American
vessels were transferred to British owners in order
to enjoy the privileges and immunities of sailing
under a neutral flag. Under these circumstances,
then, the American Minister contends that the in-
juries received "`are of so grave a nature as in rea-
son and justice to constitute a valid claim for repa-
ration and indemnification." On the other side, the
English Government contend that their recognition
of the Confederates was not only not precipitate,
but was forced upon them by the action of the Go-
vernment at Washington_ that their right to apply
the Foreign Enlistment Act by interfering with the
construction of vessels in their ports could only arise
on the assumption of I their being intended for the
service of a " Power" at war with a friendly State,
and that consequently the recognition of bellige-
rency must have preceded the application of that
act ; that they did everything in their power to
apply with effect the existing laws, and that in crder
to charge them with negligence it is not sufficient to
show that the laws might have been changed, with-
out showing that the proposed amendments would
have been efficient, or would have been such as
would have been consistent with the laws of a free
country; and, finally, that having honestly done
their utmost to acquit themselves of their obliga-
tions towards a friendly Power, they cannot admit
any liability for losses sustained by that Power
through no fault of theirs. The arguments by which
these several views were respectively supported by
Mr. Adams and Earl Russell, the evidence referred
to, and the precedents cited, are too numerous and
voluminous to be more than glanced at in an article
like the present. Whether the English Government
did all they might have done to prevent vessels
which were subsequently converted into Con-
federate ships of war leaving our ports, is a
matter on which Americans and Englishmen
will probably never be agreed. But whether
the English Ministry were too hasty in recognising
the belligerent status of the Confederates, and whether
according to the laws of nations they are bound to
compensate American citizens for the damage done
by vessels sailing under the Confederate flag, are
questions which admit of comparatively easy solu-
tion. The recognition of the belligerent character
of the South, Mr. Adams urges, was precipitate and
unprecedented, because at the time the Confederates
had not a single vessel afloat ; on the other hand,
the Foreign Secretary contends that it was indis-
pensable, because at the time it was accorded the
American President had declared a blockade of the
Southern ports. What are the facts ? On April 19,
1861, Mr. Lincoln proclaimed the blockade of seven
of the States of the Union, and thereby acknow-
ledged those States as belligerents, since, unless they
were so, the American Government could not have
acquired the right incidental to blockade, namely,
that of capturing neutral vessels which attempted
to trade with the blockaded ports.' On May 13, and
consequently subsequent to the reception of the no-
tice of such blockade in this country, Earl Russell
announced in the House of Commons that the Go-
vernment had recognised the Confederate States as
a belligerent Power. But, if this course of action
on the part of the English Government was preci-
pitate, what, let us ask Mr. Adams, would he have
had them to do ? The only alternative given to her
Majesty's Government was either to disregard the
President's proclamation, and insist on the right of
English subjects to trade with the Southern States
or to acknowledge the blockade; in other words, tO
recognise a state of war and proclaim a strict neu-
trality. The latter course was adopted, as Lord
Russell points out in his despatch of May 4, as be-
ing " the most just and most friendly to the United.
States." Whether the Government of this coun-
try should be held bound to indemnify those
American citizens whose vessels or property were
seized or destroyed by Confederate cruisers Which
left these shores notwithstanding the vigilance of
the authorities, also admits of an easy re-
ply. In international as in civil law precedents
are in doubtful cases constantly referred to as
guides, and it so happens that within the past
half century events happened bearing a close re-
semblance to those under consideration, and a de-
mand was made upon a neutral power for reparation
for damage done by vessels which had been equipped
and armed in its ports, and officered and manned by
its citizens. The complainants were Spain and Por-

tugal, the neutral power was the United States;
and although it was shown that privateers had been
equipped in American ports, and, under the com-
mand of American citizens, had captured' or de-
stroyed both Spanish and Portuguese shipping, the
demands for compensation advanced by the Span
and Portuguese Governments were never acknow-
ledged by the Government of the United States. The
then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. in Am&
rica was John Quincy Adams, afterwards President,
and father of the present Minister at the English
Court, and in his reply to the note of reclamation
presented to the Portuguese Ambassador, after stat-
ing that his Government had done all in their power
to prevent vessels being fitted out in their ports t 2
be employed against a friendly State, disclaimed all
liability to indemnify individual foreigners for losses
by capture over which the United States had neither
control nor jurisdiction. cc For such events," he
wrote, "no nation can in principle, nor does in
practice, hold itself responsible." To this precedent,
so appropriately cited by Earl Russell, the Ameri-
can Minister can find no better response than that
the wrong-doing of one party cannot be cited in
justification of a repetition of the act by the other.
We cannot assume, however, that the American Go-
vernment were wrong-doers in refusing the indem-
nity demanded by the Portuguese Government. S°
long ago as October, 1863, the Government of the
United States declared their willingness to refer the
matter in dispute to arbitration, and the Foreign Se'
cretary has now, on the part of the English Govern'
ment, declined to adopt this course. The only ques-
tions which, as Earl Russell points out, could
arise for decision, would be whether the English
Government acted with honesty and good faith ;
and secondly, whether they rightly interpreted
the powers conferred on them by the Fo-
reign Enlistment Act. Neither of these ques4
tions, however, could be submitted to an arbitrator,
as her Majesty's Government are the sole guardians
of their own honour, and must be presumed to
understand their own laws better than any foreign
Power. But the Government are willing to consent
to the appointment of a Commission to which
should be referred all claims arising during the late
war which the two Powers shall agree to refer to
the Commissioners. This proposal is, however, e°
Mr. Adams states in the despatch which conobldee
the correspondence, similar to that which was made
by the Portuguese Government to the United
States in 1818, and rejected by the latter, and the
Minister almost insinuates that the British Govern'
ment have advanced a proposal which they knoW
will be rejected. Pending the receipt of instructions
from his Government, Mr. Adams can, however,
give no definite answer to the suggestion of the
English Cabinet, and the net result of the corre-
spondence thus far is that the demand made by the
American Government for compensation for the
damage done by the Alabama and her sister cruiser°
has been rejected ; that a reference to arbitration
has been refused ; and that a proposal made by the
English Government to refer certain matters, to 13°.,,
agreed upon by both Powers, to a Commission,
most probably be declined.