The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-18 00:00:00

_~,_ .. ..

r• --

end, only conjecture at all the course it was
urged upon them to pursue, from the arguments
brought forward in support of the motion then be-

fore the House, the motion introduced by the mem-

ber for Liverpool. But—the Premier argued with

a whimsical affectation of bewilderment—the argu-

ments adduced by different speakers in support of

,his motion were so discordant in their character,

were so diametrically opposite in their tendency,
that he and his colleagues, supposing even they

had been originally disposed to listen to them,
would have been utterly bewildered as to which set

of guides ought, in the supposed contingency, to
have been followed. As it happened, however,
Ministers from first to last—wisely, we cannot but
think—had not the smallest intention whatever of
accepting the guidance of either. Her MAJESTY'S
responsible advisers in a matter of imperial import
like this (eventually, if not immediately)—appear
judiciously never to have had from the outset
the faintest notion in the world of acceding
to Mr. HORSFALL'S proposition ! And thus while
good humouredly enough assuming for a
moment an air of puzzled hesitation be-
tween his conflicting advisers (and of course
all of them his earnest well wishers) the First
Lord of the Treasury avowed, at last, quite frankly,
late last night, or rather very early this morning,
that while the motion may have originated in the
most philanthropic sentiments imaginable, her
MAJESTY'S Government could not, at any rate,
support it. Lord PALMERSTON went indeed a good
deal further than that. He repudiated the human-
tarian principles involved in the motion as mistaken
—as worse than mistaken, as insidious—as worse
than insidious, as destructive.
What, in effect, is the real and general
purport of Mr. HORSFALL'S Resolution ? It is
said to be a logical sequence, in 1862, of the
Declaration of Paris in 1856. When, lite-
rally, it is just nothing whatever of the kind.
The Declaration, it will be remembered, related
simply and exclusiveiy to the position of .Neutrals
at sea in time of war ! The proposition involved in
Mr. HORSFALL'S motion—a mere " abstract reso-
lution," it was argued deprecatingly in its
favour by its supporters, 0, those "ab-
stract resolutions ! " don't we know that,
if once accepted by a Government, they may
lead it afterwards just anywhere P—The proposi-
tion, we say, involved in Mr. HORSFALL'S motion
relating, on the contrary, to the position of Belli-
gerents in regard to each other ! According to the
Declaration of Paris in 1856, all that was there and
then humanely decreed as a novelty was this, that
an enemy's property should be free from capture on
the high seas in neutral vessels. Surely, a moderate,
a wise, a just, and an equitable declaration ! But
then comes, under the assumed guise of a pendant
to this, Mr. HousraLfs proposition that all private
property should be protected from seizure even on
board the vessels of Neutral Belligerents. The sug-
gestion here springing out of the dread felt by
some lest, in the event of a war, the chief part, if
not even the whole, of the carrying trade might
pass out of our own hands into those of Neu-
trals—the Neutrals, as we have seen, being
sheltered under the beneficent sagis of the Declara-
tion of Paris. But—surely, surely, the mere dread
of the possible diminution of the carrying trade
under the influence of that paragraph in the Treaty
of Paris in 1856 is but a paltry and sordid reason
for advancing by a distinct non sequitur to the
" consequent" acceptance (the consequent acceptance,
forsooth !) of Mr. HORSFALL'S proposition ! A pro-
position the palsying effects of which upon our
strong right arm it would be really difficult to esti-
mate. Developing the abstract resolution con-
tained in the motion of the hon. member for Liver-
pool to its natural dimensions, by the resolute ap-
plication of it—we should be necessarily giving
up a power (wilfully, voluntarily, egregiously) that
we have heretofore in common with others pos
sessed without dispute—the power hitherto secured
by every maritime nation of seizing the enemy's
ships on the high seas—an unconditional abandon-
ment of power that, as Lord PALMERSTON indig-
nantly objects (and with reason) would cripple our
main arm of strength, would inflict a fatal blow
upon our naval supremacy, would be nothing less in
fact than the deliberate commission of an act of
political suicide !
. The humane principles actuating the hon. mem-
ber for Liverpool and his supporters, we recognise
with all imaginable cordiality, we bow to respect-
fully, we sympathise with to the very utter-
most. But we shrink with dismay from
the application of these principles to In-
ternational Law in such a manner as must in-
evitably prove, sooner or later, destructive (to in-
sist upon the Premier's apt phrase, suicidally de-
structive) of the maritime supremacy of England.
While, therefore, we cannot but regret the diffi-
culty of applying these principles to the yet further
and further amelioration of the horrors of war by
sea as well as by land—we cannot, in the present
instance, affect in any way to regret the fruitless
issue of these discussions upon Mr. HORSFALL'S
motion, and its quiet withdrawal in the end
by the hon. member without his compelling
his supporters to pass under the caudine forks of a
Division.
Our one only regret, in regard to the
debate last evening, had reference to the renewed,
and always deeply regretted indisposition of Mr.
COBDEN, whose illness now, unfortunately for the
House and for the country, precluded him from
fulfilling his design of speaking (as he only could
have spoken) in reference to the motion : a design,
first of all implied, of course, when he in so many
words briefly " begged leave to second it" im-
mediately the member for Liverpool had closed his
speech on introducing the resolution, and yet more
plainly and distinctly avowed by the hon. mem-
ber for Rochdale when he last week, at the termi-
nation of the first night's debate, formally moved
the adjournment. If Mr. COBDEN was silent, how-
ever, Mr. BRIGHT spoke yesterday, and spoke,
moreover, admirably to the purpose. It was
from no lack of genius, of logic, of eloquence, in
support of his motion, in truth, that Mr. Hons.
FALL'S " abstract resolution" failed in catching the
ear of the House, or in winning for itself its accept-
ance by the Government. It failed simply because
what might be applicable in Utopia or in the Mil-
enium, is inapplicable in England and in the Nine-
teenth Century.

The last intelligence from America loaves us in a
state of exciting suspense. It seemed then as if
two great battles were on the verge of being
fought which must exercise more influence
on the war than any previously fought—one in
Tennesse and one on the Potomac. Every day may
be expected to bring some information respecting
One or both, though we must not of course forget
t.
not alwayshat in military movements what seems imminent
s
really so. Still, both BUELL and
NrCLELLAN seemed almost pledged to fight speedily
when we last heard of them.
BUELL in Tennessee,
co- •
the hero of Fort bon, ," operating with GRANT,
on, must have been close
upon the main body of the rebels is the centre of
Tennessee, while GRANT'S
my hadaclvaanndceNd
asuc-
cessively from the Fort to Clarksville
ville, and hardly met with opposition. The rumour
that the rebels weresurroundedatMurfree,qorough,