The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—It is with hearty satisfaction that we
record the friendly overtures made by her Majesty's
Government to that of the United States. Lord
Stanley, as we announced yesterday, has instructed
the British Minister at Washington to propose a
resort to arbitration on the differences arising out
of the American war, and from the language in
which this decision has been made public by the
Foreign Office, we may infer that a recent commu-
nication from Mr. Seward paved the way for its
adoption. It is now for the Government of the
Unite States to say whether they will accede to
the principle of arbitration, the precise terms and
subjects of which are properly reserved for subse-
quent discussion. Upon the latter point we cannot
anticipate that any serious difficulty will be found.
Of course the depredations of the Alabama arc the
real sources of dispute, and the great question for
the arbitrator will be to what extent, if any, Great
Britain is responsible, legally or morally, under cir-
cumstances to be duly set forth in the case, for the
consequences of her escape from the Mersey. The
law officers of the two countries, if they could meet
for consultation, would probably succeed, within a
very few hours, in framing a statement perfectly
satisfactory to both. There is, indeed, no contro-
versy about the facts ; the controversy is about the
principles which should be applied to them. Here
the amplest discretion should, upon every ground,
be left to the arbitrator. The object is not to obtain
a judicial determination of a legal doubt, but to
bring about an equitable arrangement between two
innocent parties who, being nations and not indi-
viduals, have no common superior. So long as the
_ construction of our Foreign Enlistment Act was
before the law courts it was inevitable that especial
stress should be laid on the legal aspect of the claim
preferred by the United States ; when it once comes
before the arbitrator, it is the moral aspect which
should predominate. Municipal tribunals are
governed by precedent, even in matters involving
national interests, not because precedent is a sounder
guide than principles of justice, but rather because
an adherence to precedent is the only safeguard
against partiality, and the only security for uni-
formity of decision. This reason is manifestly
inapplicable to the adjudication of international dif-
ferences by a Sovereign Power. Such a proceeding
is more analogous to the intervention of a peace-
maker between two friends who have disagreed
than to any ordinary litigation. The supreme end
of a legal judgment is that it should be in strict
conformity with the law ; the supreme end of inter-
national, as of private, mediation is to effect a set-
tlement which can be accepted on both sides with
honour. Will Lord Stanley, however, be supported
by public opinion in making a proposal all but
identical with that which Lord Russell declined,
and thereby incurring the risk of a refusal from the
United States? We venture to believe that he
will, and, further, that his moral courage in taking
a course repugnant to a false but plausible senti-
ment of national dignity will be rewarded by suc-
cess. It should always be remembered that Lord
Russell's final reply to Mr. Adams was the conclu-
sion of an elaborate correspondence on our alleged
liability for injuries inflicted by the Alabama and
her consorts. That correspondence was conducted,
almost exclusively, upon the narrow basis of an
appeal to precedents, and as the burden of proof
lay upon Mr. Adams, Lord Russell possessed a
great advantage, which. he turned skilfully to ac-
count. There were very few precedents relevant to
the argument, but of these one of the most recent
and important, in which the United States had oc-
cupied the position of defendant, happened to be in
our favour. Lord Russell, chiefly relying on this
case, had already committed himself to a denial of
the American claim before it was ultimately pre-
sented in a practical shape, and his prompt rejection
of it in that shape followed almost by way of logical
consequence. We do not justify this part of Lord
Russell's policy, and we regret the ungracious lan-
guage in which an unpalatable reply was conveyed.
It would. have been far better to suggest a change
in the form of the claim than to cut off all
prospect of its being entertained in any form what-
ever. At the same time, Lord Russell's error may
be partly explained by the turn which the dis-
cussion had taken, and partly excused by the
peremptory tone of Mr. Adams's remonstrances.
But an error it was, as we have more than once
pointed out, not only in policy, but on principles of
reason and right. There are, doubtless, some de-
ma
andsany nao
tion monstrous
to
consent
th
ua ta
ri
bt
roa would b
upone
but
when a Government on terms of amity with our own
complains of having been aggrieved by our default,
and offers to submit its alleged grievance to arbi-
tration, it is no sufficient answer to say that we can-
not allow a foreign Sovereign to sit in judgment on
our conduct. We have been parties to a declaration
in favour of referring international disputes to ar-
bitration ; we have actually referred a late dispute
with a much weaker Power to arbitration and bowed

tteont,li aarrbbi
ittrraatt3i ro'ns
taowaanryd ,
Statean d
ge a
isnhsotullvdh certainlyich Great
Britainleer had a cause of complaint. Then, why de-
mur to arbitration when proposed by the United
States, only because we have implicit confidence in
the justice of our cause? We say again that Lord
Russell's unqualified rejection of Mr. Adams's ten-
der was a false step, and if a false step, that Lord
Stanley was bound to retrace it without needless
delay and without unworthy reservations. There
is nothing half so undignified as being in the wrong,.
nor was there any means of placing us in the right
except by assuming the initiative and inviting the
United States to meet us half way. Whether they
will do so, and if so, in what spirit they will do so,
remains to be seen. We can hardly expect that Mr.
Seward will lose the opportunity of commenting on
our change of attitude, or that some of our New
York contemporaries will fail to attribute Lord
Stanley's proffered concession to base motives. It
will, perhaps, be said or insinuated, but with an entire
oblivion of dates, that we presumed on the weakness
of America in the day of her calamity, and truckle
to her when she has regainsd her strength. Now,
if this reproach were ever so well deserved, yet it
ought not to deter us from acting upon our own con-
victions of duty. It is, however, wholly undeserved,
and capable of being rebutted by plain facts. The
moment selected by Mr. Seward for pressing his
demands upon Lord Russell was precisely that at
which the United States, triumphant by sea and land,
had crushed the insurrection, still maintaining a vast
army and navy on a war footing, and indulging
hopes of a speedy reconstruction, which experience
has since disappointed. If there ever was a time
at which Great Britain had reason to fear a rupture
with America, it was that very time when Lord
Russell in its name repudiated the Alabama claims.
But we cannot bring ourselves to dwellon this topic,
nor can we suppose that motives so petty and un-
statesmanlike will influence the counsels of the
United States. Englishmen did not suspect America
of cowardice when, in deference to the clear rules
of maritime law, she gave up the prisoners wrong-
fully captured on board the Trent, and Americans
of sense will not suspect England of cowardice be-
cause, in deference to equally clear dictates of in-
ternational morality, she retires from an untenable
position. The United States' Government yielded
then, although many persons in this country pre-
dicted that national pride would be too strong for
them. It is the turn of our Government to yield
now, and, whether or not their motives be appre-
ciated, we have confidence in the result of their
efforts to renew those friendly relations with a
kindred people which should never have been inter-
rupted.

The Colliery Guardian publishes some interesting
statistics concerning the recent strikes in the iron
trade. £300,000 is calculated to be the sum lost to
the men in wages, while only £lO,OOO has been sub-
scribed by the unions, which was distributed
amongst only a third of the number on strike. The
remainder, some six or seven thousand, got no
assistance at all from the unions. Nor is this all.
The losses occasioned by the strikes are by no means
at an end. According to the Colliery Guardian :
" There are also secondary losses which will have
to be borne. The malleable iron trade has been di-
rected into other channels, and under the most
favourable circumstances a long time must elapse
before it will be got back again. This means short
time even at the reduced wages, and the non-re-
munerative employment of capital for the manufac-
turers, with corresponding effects to all who depend
directly or indirectly upon the iron trade. The
labour market has also been affected in two ways.
A large number of fairly-skilled underhands have
risen to a foremost place, and the men imported
from other districts are far more numerous than
those who have left the North country.
A meeting of the British Fine Arts Committee
of Selection was held. on Friday, Dec. 28, at the
South Kensington Museum, present—Sir Francis
Grant, president of the Royal Academy; Frederick
Tayler, Esq., president of the W ater- colour Society ;
Frederick Y. Hurlstone, Esq., President of the
Society of British Artists ; Henry Warren, Esq.,
president of the Institute of Water-colour
Painters, and Richard Redgrave, Esq., R.A. The
committee revised the lists submitted by the artists
of the works by which they desired to be represented
at Paris, and made a careful selection of such
paintings and drawings as they thought would best
represent the English school.