The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-18 00:00:00

When the subject was first ventilated,we explained
the state of the law on the subject, pointing out that
the " visitation" was exercised at our own risk—that
if we succeeded in showing that the vessel
was sailing under a false flag, the owners, cap-
tain, and seamen would be guilty of a double
crime, and liable to the authorities both of Great
Britain and the United States, for the act of piracy,
and also for an infringement on the sanctity of the
American banner. This view was subsequently
taken by the veteran Lord LYNDIIURST, whose mas-
terly judgment—for it may rather be termed a judg-
ment than an opinion—may be considered to have
decided the important question of international law.
General CASS recognises the same principle, but he
gives even greater latitude than had hitherto been
claimed. He says, "As the identity of a person
must be determined by the officer bearing a process
for his arrest, so must the national identity of a ves-
sel be determined at the like hazard by him who,
doubting the flag she displays, searches her to ascer-
tain her true character."
This cannot be controverted. It is sound law.
No Englishman would for a moment assert that be-
cause a sheriff-officer had a writ against JOHN NOKES
he could wantonly arrest PETER STYLES and detain
him for some hours, to the very serious prejudice of
his private affairs. If he could show just grounds of
suspicion, it would of course materially reduce the
damages, more especially if the party claiming da-
mages for false imprisonment appeared to be in col-
lusion with the real defendant. Mr. Secretary CASS
has, however, taken a liberal view of the subject.
He says—" There may no doubt be circumstances
which would go far to modify the complaints a nation
would have a right to make for such a violation of
its sovereignty. If the boarding officer had just
ground for suspicion, and deported himself with
propriety in the performane of his task, doing noc
injury, and peacefully retiring when satisfied of
his error, no nation would make such an
act the subject of serious reclamation." He
only insists that it shall pot be regarded as " a
right," but as "an excusable trespass," where there
is a reasonable foundation for the suspicion, and
authorising the party who has resorted to such a
course the privilege of satisfying himself, not merely
by visiting and inspecting papers, but by a strict
search. Like Lord LTIIIMURST, General CASs
makes " visiting" and " searching" equivalent.
Neither are to be undertaken on light grounds, but
when the party undertakes the responsibility, he
may thoroughly satisfy himself whether his sus-
picions be well-founded or otherwise. The process
of " verifying the flag" will henceforward be car-
ried much further than it has even hitherto
been—the theory will be the smile, but the practice
widely different.
For this satisfactory solution of the problem that
will inflict a heavy blow and great discouragement
on the abominable traffic in human beings, we are
indebted to the temper, discretion, and justice of
Lord MALMESBURY. Had he resorted to diplomatic
trickery or humbug—Thad he sought to uphold a
claim not sustained by international law—the question
would have been greatly complicated, and great ill-feel-
ing excited between the two great nations of the Anglo-
Saxon race, whose c:tizens profess the same religion,
and speak the same language, and have the same
blood circulating in their veins. We have thus ad-
ditional cause of rejoicing at the great change in the
foreign policy of the country since the accession to
office of the present Administration, and which has
conciliated France, overawed Naples, and induced the
United States to pursue a course alike creditable
to itself and beneficial to the great, the holy cause
which England and the English nation have so
deeply at heart. In every department, the Govern-
ment of Lord DEUBT has done well, but in none
better than that of Foreign Affairs, so well repre-
sented by Lord MALIIESDURY in the House of Lords
and Mr. S. FITZGERALD in the House of Commons.

What will the Whigs do about Reform next ses-
sion ? Fact after fact is pouring in to back the
popular demand for the Ballot—facts which must
and will triumph over all the old Tory predictions
and excuses of Lurd J. RUSSELL and the family clique.
Without the Ballot as their leading watchword we
believe the Whigs will just look—we can find no
better word—silly. They have invented all kinds of
what must now' be termed mere ludicrous evasions,
to escape putting the rotes of the electors absolutely
into their owu' bands. The evasions have been
shown up till they are almost ashamed to
utter them, and latterly colony after colony
has endorsed every argument of Liberals at
home, has reduced the Ballot to practice, and has
rejoiced in the result ; even colonial Whigs and
Tories confessing that to dream of repealing what
works so well is not even to be thought of by any
party—that if thought of it would be its ruin.
•following rceden set
NEW ZEALAND is DOW folo
lire Ilealearn
e t
from the
by the Australian colonies !
Wellington Independent of
b May the 12th
l ep tethatv the
Ballot is to be proposed y theuGlyeneareacGod ern3Thet
-,
ment, and has been nnanimo
the Provincial Council at IVellington
Assembly and the Provincial Councils correspond
.
in New Zealand pretty much to the Congress
and State Legislatures in the United States, and
there seems to be no doubt, from the proceed-
ings in both, that the adoption of the Ballot
in New Zealand is a settled question. In
the Assembly his Excellency, in his opening
peecb, says, " I am confident that measures
framed for the purpose of placing the electoral laws,
as far as may be, above the effects of local jealousies
ad party poopua....of protfOns electors in the /mot