The Sun.
London, England, 1870-09-02 00:00:00

ENQLISH NEUTRALITY.

Naturally enough, both Prussia and France are dis-
satisfied with the course which is being pursued by British
merchants under the Neutrality laws. Each declares
that the other is the most favoured, and both indulge in
open denunciation. Prussia asserts that England practi-
cally allows her territory to become the French base of
naval operations against the coasts of North Germany,
by supplying French ships with coal. She also asserts
that England is a magazine from which France can draw
any amount of war material. France, on the
other hand, complains that English merchants are, sup-
plying Prussia freely with everything she needs and that
both the English Government and people sympathise
with that country to an extent which impairs their neu-
trality. Between the two, England is in a fair way to
get the ill-will of both belligerents, just as she did in the
rebellion in this country, and yet it is said by
her Government that she is strictly fulfilling
all the duties of a neutral under the law of
nations. The accepted rule now is that neutral
ships may carry what they choose to either belligerent,
excepting " contraband of war," and to any port which
is not blockaded. All goods are declared to be contraband
which ate specially required for war purposes, such as
arms and amhiunition, and even such goods may be sup-
plied without offence, subject only to the risk of capture.
Under these rules it will be readily seen that in case one
of the belligerent Powers has a strong war marine, and
the other a weak one, the former possesses a great advan-
tage. This was the case with the North and South
during our war, and it is the case now with France as
against Prussia. France has a strong navy, and is able to
keep a sharp watch, and almost entirely prevent the sup-
ply of contraband goods to Prussia, while there is no im-
pediment to trade with France. So long ars the lawremains
as it is, a commercial people like the English will be
pretty sure to take advantage of it, and the result will be
that they will have the ill-will of the belligerent which
suffers most, and very likely of both. Nations, like
individuals, are sure to resent hostile interference
when they are engaged in a contest, even though that
interference may not be prompted by sympathy.. Eng-
lish dealers supply the French fleet with coal, and send
large numbers of horses to France, and Prussia very
naturally complains, although it is clear that she does so
upon insufficient legal grounds. Still the fact exists that
a serious ill-feeling toward England prevails in Prussia,
while England is lavishing all its sympathy and " moral
support" upon Prussia. Considerable discussion is taking
place in England on this subject, and much regret is
expressed that the cordial feeling between Prussia and
Great Britain has been disturbed. The remedy which is
proposed—and it seems to be the only one that can be
applied—is to amend the existing Neutrality laws so as
to prohibit the sale of contraband goods to belligerent
Powers, and to define mote fully what articles are contra-
band. It has also been suggested that the Queen be em-
powered, by order in Council, to prohibit, tem-
porarily, the supply of such articles as are
not strictly contraband of war, but which may
become essential to a belligerent, as is the case with coal
just at present. It is argued that perfeCt neutrality is in
the interests of humanity, inasmuch as it would tend to
shorten wars, and that this consideration ought to be
sufficient to overrule the objection that it would cripple
commerce. Most wars would, doubtless, be brought to a
speedier determination if the belligerents were confined
strictly to their own resources. and in many in-
stances we do not doubt that hostilities would be
prevented by the general adoption of a policy of perfect
neutrality. But aside from that consideration, we believe
that in the long run, even so commercial a country as
England would not lose by resolutely repressing trade with
belligerents, and especially in contraband goods. The
good will of other nations is of greater importance to that
country than to almost any other, simply because it is so
extensively engaged in commerce and manufacturing, and
it can far better afford to forego temporary
gains than to hazard the permanent loss of future
trade. But Great Britain ought to be controlled
by a higher consideration than that of mere
pecuniary interest. It should be impartial and fair, and
so define the laws as that both belligerents may know
what to rely upon. There should be no technical evasion,
no quibbling, but an honest, straightforward neutrality,
which would win the respect and preserve the good will
of all nations which may be so unfortunate as to be in-
volved in war. From the tone of the English press upon
this subject, we judge that the general feeling is in favour
of such a policy, and the indications are that it will be
adapted—perhaps not soon enough to prevent a misunder-
standing with Prussia, but in time for any fresh hostilities
which may occur.—Neu) York Times.