The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-11 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sir,—Any on conversant with British history
and the principles maintained by the British Go-
vernm nt previous to the declaration of the Con-
gress of Plenipotentiaries at Paris on the 26th
of April, 1856, must be surprised to see the
overheated excitement and warlike preparation
which have pervaded England since the receipt of
the news of the arrest, on board of the Trent, by
the commander of the San Jacinto, of Messrs.
Slidell and Mason, the Commissioners named by the
revolutionary party in the United States to repre-
sent it in Great Britain and France; and the sur-
prise is not lessened by the knowledge that the act
complained of as an offence to the British flag was
the exercise of an acknowledged belligerent right,
and one heretofore carried to the utmost extreme
by Great Britain.

Towards the close of the last and the begin-
ning of the present century, the British Govern-
ment acted with the most unecrupulous severity
towards neutrals, and, indeed, may be said not
to have paid any regard to their rights or to
the declarations and protests of neutral Powers.
Accumulated proofs may be found in works on in-
ternational law, and many cases may be cited to
show the inconsistency between the policy of the
British Cabinet at that time and the course it is
now pursuing towards the United States.
The present question may be reduced to two
points:— _ _ _

1. Was the commander of the San Jacinto justi-
fied in visiting the Trent on the high seas ?
2. Can the persons taken out of the Trent be
legitimately considered as contraband of war ?
In time of war every vessel met on the high
seas by a ship of war of a belligerent is
held to be an enemy, whatever may be the flag she
wears, until her real character is ascertained ; and
even after showing that she is neutral she must ex-
hibit proof that she is not engaged in any commerce
made illicit by the state of war. This is the founda-
tion of the right of search, and according to the
best authorities it is not the exercise of any act of
jurisdiction over neutral vessels, but one of neces-
sary precaution, based upon the right of E elf-pre-
serration. With respect to this right no nation has
carried its pretension so far as Great Britain, for
during the wars growing out of the first French
Revolution the British Government went to the
extreme of insisting that even neutral vessels under
convoy of a man of war were not exempt from
search, and that resistance on the part of the con-
voying ship to the visit and examination of the
vessels under its escort would be regarded as a
hostile act. The enforcement of this pretension in
1799 gave rise to serious questions between Great
Britain and Sweden and Denmark.

This police of the seas was not confined to a
search for articles evidently contraband of war, but
extended to impressing British subjects from on
board of neutral vessels, on the ground that his
Majesty's subjects were bound to serve him in time
of war. The American Government, after protest-
ing against the repeated encroachments made by
Great Britain upon its rights as a neutral, instructed
its Minister at London to open a negotiation upon
the subject, and to propose that no person should
be taken out of a vessel belonging to either party
unless he should be in the military service of the
enemy. The British Government rejected this pro-
position, upon the ground that it would afford
facilities for the escape of traitors. Several modifi-
cations were proposed by the United States, all of
which were objected to by Great Britain, and the
persistence of the latter in her vexatious exactions
finally led to war between the two countries.
The right of search or visitation of neutrals by
a belligerent, under proper restrictions, is not dis-
puted by the United States, as may be seen in their
treaties with France, Spain, Prussia, &c., where
the right is expressly admitted, the manner of
making the search regulated, the articles which
shall be deemed contraband defined, and the manner
of disposing of them stipulated.
The right in a belligerent to visit neutral vessels
to ascertain their character and the nature of their
cargo being recognised, it is clear that the com-
mander of the San Jacinto was fully justifiable in
bringing to the Trent for the purpose of visitation.
I shall now examine whether the persons taken
out of the Trcnt can be considered as contraband of
war.

The torm "contraband of war" is generally under-
stood to mean arms, munitions of war, naval stores,
and other articles prepared and formed to make
war, by land or by sea. It also comprehends officers
or other persons in the service of the enemy, and
despatches, bills of exchange, &c., sent from or to
an enemy.
Respecting Messrajlidell and Mason, there was
no doubt of thepurposof4which they embarked on
board of the Trent. Thdi object of their mission to
Europe was well known; they were not coming out
in a private capacity, but were invested with as
much official ,character as could be given by a re-
volutionary pqrpf, and as such clearly contraband
in every proper acceptation of the term. They were
so according to the principles of international law,
and, as far as Great Britain is concerned, doubly
so under the Queen's Proclamation.