The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-07 00:00:00

POSTHUMOUS DISPOSITIONS.

The question of the disposition of posthumous pro-
perty was discussed by the Society of Arts on Mon-
day, at a meeting under the presidency of Lord
Stanley. A paper read to the meeting by Mr. Hob-
house, Q.C., contended that property did not belong
to the dead ; and that the living should control it,
not the will of the deceased. He advised that a
public board should be formed to take under consider-
ation all gifts to public uses ; to decide whether they
should take effect, and to control them afterwards.
Lord Stanley rather demurred to the full extent
of such an argument. He, however, admitted
that there had been much abuse in the management
of public charities, and deprecated a too scrupulous
adherence to the terms of obsolete endowments. No one
would contend (he said) that the State had not a right
to interfere in the government of a charity which had
been abused and where charities had failed in their
objects the State ought to assert its power by appro-
priating them to other purposes.
A NEW SUGGESTION ON THE ALABAMA DIFFICULTY.
The controversy between England and France has
been so thoroughly exhausted that a new idea
must be regarded as quite a phenomenon.
Nevertheless, the New York World may fairly
claim credit for suggesting, in connection
with the Alabama difficulty, a mode of settlement
which is both original and worthy of consideration.
The World abandons the idea of claiming damages
for England's recognition of the South as a bellige-
rent State. Such a claim is both illogical and im-
practicable. Every sovereign State must decide for
itself when a rebellion has attained such proportions
as to become a war, and the English Govern-
ment, in according belligerent rightsto the South, only
exercised a common international right. Moreover,
Russia and France also recognised the South, and a
claim on this ground against England must be,
accompanied by a similar demand upon other Euro-
pean States. The Americans themselves have been
by no means backward in exercising the very privi-
lege of which they now complain. Rejecting this
untenable theory of damages, the World confines its
scheme to the actual depredations of the Alabama
and other cruisers. With respect to the former, it
thinks the breach of the neutrality law was so clear
that there can be no need for arbitration. The
American people can never be convinced that in,
respect of the Alabama's escape: there was not wilful
negligence on the part of the Customs authorities,
and a languor of action on the part of the
Crown law officers. for which liability ourtht

ar Wee- to be' aliaidailoidgßG aarec— American
holds that the British Government ought to acknow-
ledge, without reference to arbitration, its liability
for the depredations of the Alabama. If this were
done, accompanied by England's regret, the doings
of the other Southern cruisers, which leave more
room for doubt, may be referred, and the question
thus settled. But that our liability in the case of
the Alabama admits of no doubt is, according to the
World, the fixed judgment of the Americans. The
proposal is new, is much more moderate than any
other we have had of late, and, most important of
all, it is supposed to represent the views of Mr. Fish,
the successor of Mr. Seward.