The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NoVEIW3ER 28, 1861.

TILE INSULT TO THE BRI7ISII FLAG
BY AN AMERICAN WAR-8111P.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
(From the Times.)
It requires a strong effort ofself-restraint to dis-
cuss with coolness the intelligence we publish to-
day. An English mail steamer, sailing under the
British flag, and carrying letters and passengers
from a Spanish port to England, has been stopped
on the high seas and overhauled. Four of the
passengers have been taken out and carried off as
prisoners, claiming, and vainly claiming, as they
were being forced away, the protection of the flag
of Great Britain. These are the naked facts. We
put out of sight the accidents that the four gentle-
men thus kidnapped were accredited with a diplo-
matic mission from the Confederate States of
America to the Courts of Europe, and also the
peremptory manner in which the Federal frigate
acted in making her seizure. The intention of
the Federal Government evidently was to act
upon their strict right, and to do so in as little
ceremonious a manner as might be. If they
are justified by their rights as belligerents in
what they have done the manner of doing it is
a mere question of good or bad taste. If a rude
fellow claims his rights coarsely wo must yet give
him his rights; and if wo would not find ourselves
in the wrong wo must not quarrel with him on ac-
count of his ill manners.
Is it, then, true that every officer of the American
Navy can stop and overhaul our ships wherever
they may be found, and can take out of them any
persons whom he may claim to be citizens of the
United States or officers of the Confederate Govern-
ment ? If we were to admit the Federal view of
their own position it would be plain that no such
right exists. They tell us that they are not at
war, but are only putting down a rebellion. They
say, or said, that they are not blockading their
own ports, but are simply enforcing a law which
has closed the Southern ports as ports of entry.
They insist upon putting their quarrel upon the
same ground as if the Queen of England were put-
ting down a rebellion in the Isle of Wight. Now,
if this were so, it is clear that the Federal States of
America have in stopping our mail steamer been
guilty of an act of aggression which could only be
properly punished by laying an embargo on every
American ship in British ports and sweeping their
little Navy from the seas. They would, according
to their point of view, not be at war, and would
have none of the rights of belligerents over neutrals.
They would no more be belligerents than England
was after the celebrated Smith O'Brien battle in the
cabbage-garden, and they would have no more right
to stop our ships and carry off our passengers than
we should have had to stop a French ship and take
Mr. Smith O'Brien out of her. But this assumption
of the Federal Government has been disallowed.
The world generally has refused to see in this dis-
ruption and reconstitution of the North American
Republic a mere rebellion. We have recognized
both Republics as belligerent States. We declare
neutrality between them as between two warring
Powers. We mete out a precise degree of equal
consideration for the ships of war of each. In
everything but our diplomacy we bear ourselves
exactly equal between them. Whenever the
Southern States shall have given proof of such
stability as may make it sure that they can
sustain their independence we shall doubtless re-
cognise them diplomatically, as we already do de
facto. This is the test applied by all writers on
International Law. To support a claim to enter
into the comity of nations the only proof required
of any people is that they are able to make their
independence respected. Kings and Emperors,
and even Dukes and Electors, have sometimes re•
fused to recognise the Government for the time
being of England or Franco or Italy, but only to
their own ultimate ridicule. We have already re-
cognised these Confederate States as a belligerent
Power, and we shall, when the time comes, recog-
nise their Government. '1 heref ore we have imposed
upon ourselves all the duties and inconveniences of
a Power neutral between two belligerents.
Unwelcome as the truth may be, it is neverthe-
less a truth, that we have ourselves established a
system of International Law which now tells
against us. In high-handed, and almost despotic
manner, we have in former days claimed privi-
leges over neutrals which have at different times
banded all tho maritime Powers of the world
against us. We have insisted even upon stopping
the ships of war of neutral nations and taking
British] subjects out of them ; and an instance is
given by Jefferson in his " Memoirs" in which two
nephews of Washington were impressed by our
cruisers as they were returning from Europe, and
placed as common seamen under the discipline of
ships of war. We have always been the strenuous
asserters of the rights of belligerents over neutrals,
and the decisions of our courts of law, as they
must now be cited by our Law Officers, have been
in confirmation of these unreasonable claims, which
have called into being Confederations and armed
neutralities against us, and which have always
been modified in practice when we were not su-
preme in our dominion at sea. Owing to these
facts the authorities which may be cited on this
question are too numerous and too uniform as
to the right of search by belligerent ships of
war over neutral merchant vessels to be disputed.
"The only security that nothing is to be found
inconsistent with amity and the law of nations,
known to the law of nations," said Lord Stowell
in the celebrated case of the Maria, " is the right
of personal visitation and search to be exercised by
those who have an interest in making it." Again
Lord Stowell, in the same judgment, which is the
storehouse of all the English law on this subject
says,—" Be the ships, the cargoes and the destina-
tion what they may, the right of visit and search
are the incontestable right of the cruisers of a belli-
gerent nation. Till they are visited and searched it
does not appear what the ships or the destination
are ; and it is for the purpose of ascertaining these
points that the necessity of this right of visitation
and search exists. This right is so clear in prin-
ciple that no man can deny it who admits the
right of maritime capture; because if you are not
at liberty to ascertain by sufficient inquiry whether
there is property that can be legally captured, it is
impossible to capture. The many European trea-
ties which refer to this right refer to it as pre-exist-
ing, and merely regulate the exercise of it. All
writers upon the law of nations unanimously ac-
knowledge it." The great American authority Kent,
treating upon the same subject in his " Commen-
taries," says—" The duty of self-preservation gives
to belligerent nations this right. The doctrine of
,iraanldt yo
nCtohner Courts t
int
at
thi
oe
nr iogfhtthoe fr
gi shi
t-
tt
tei
oEn nagnl
disiskeAardcmh
has been recognised in its fullest extent by the
Courts of Justice in this country." So far as the
authorities go the testimony of international law
writers is all one way, that a belligerent war
cruiser has a right to stop and visit and search rny
merchant ship upon the high seas.
We quote these authorities because it is essential
that upon a matter so important as that now before
us the public mind should be well informed. But
it must be remembered that these decisions were
given under circumstances very different from those
which now occur. Steamers in those days did not
exist, and mail vessels carrying letters wherein all
nations of the world have immediate interest were
unknown. We were fighting for existence,
and we did in those days what we should
neither do nor allow others to do, nor expect
ourselves to be allowed to do, in these
days. Moreover, if we gave full scope to all this
antiquated law it remains still to be asked whether
the men who have been taken from beneath the
protection of our flag were liable to seizure. They
were not officers of the army or of the navy of the
Confederate States. They were Diplomatic Envoys,
wanting only in some formalities to be Ambassadors

to England and France. We do not say that there
is any provision in the law of nations which will
entitle us to maintain that their persons were sacred
by reason of their mission; on the other hand, we ',re
not aware of any authority which will show that
these Envoys were contraband of war. If we had re-
cognised the Confederate States we apprehend ti tat
we should have been perfectly justified in taking
these Ambassadors on board our own vessels of NI, 'ar
and bringing them to Englani without in any w ay
forfeiting our character as n4rals. But, even if: it
were necessary to admit that these gentlemen w ere
in a belligerent or contraband character on be and
the English vessel, it is, we believe, the opinion of
very eminent jurists that this was not a question to
be adjudicated on by a naval officer and four boats'
crews. The legal course would have been to take the
ship into port and to ask for her condemnation, or
for the condemnation of the passengers, in a Court
of Admiralty. The result might, no doubt, have
been the same, but if the proceeding was irregular
we have surely a right to demand that these pri-
soners shall be restored,

When such tremendous interests are at stake we
feel deeply the responsibility of discussing a qui,?s-
tion like this. Our first duty is to calm—certainly
not to inflame—the general indignation which will
be felt in these islands as the news is told. We can-
not yet believe, although the evidence is strong,
that it is the fixed determination of the Govern-
ment of the Northern States to force a quarrel upon
the Powers of Europe. We hope, therefore, that our
people will not meet this provocation with an out-
burst of passion, or rush to resentment without full
consideration of all the bearings of the case. On
the other hand, wo appeal to the reasonable men
of the Federal States—and they haxe some reason-
able men among them—not to provoke war by such
acts as these. It is, and it always has been, vain to
appeal to old folios and bygone authorities in jus-
tification of acts which every Englishman and every
Frenchman cannot but feel to be injurious and in-
sulting. Even Mr. Seward himself must know
that the voices:of these Southern Commissioners,
sounding from their captivity, are a thousand times
more eloquent in London and in Paris than they
would have been if they had been heard at St.
James's and the Tuileries. Questions of this kind

in countries where the people exercise power pass
but too quickly out of the hands of lawyers and
statesmen, and give irresistible power to neither the
wisest nor the most peaceloving members of a com-
munity.

(From the Daily sews.)
The American Government is surely the most

unfortunate of governments, or else the most san-

guine. An officer of the, Federal navy has struck
a better blow for the rebel cause than either General

Beauregard or Johnston has yet been able to do.
There is rejoicing on board the Nashville, and if
Messrs. Yancey and Dudley Mann did not feast
their friends last night they missed a fine opportu-

nity. The news by the La Plata, which we pub-
lish to-day, will raise the spirits of the whole South.
The United States Government—for, until the act
is disavowed and atoned for, on it must fall the

responsibility—has struck its best friend in the

face, a friend that never yet when smitten on the
left cheek turned the right for a second blow.
On the Bth instant the Royal Mail Company's
steamer Trent was performing the voyage between

Havannah and tho Danish island of St. Thomas,

having on board Mr. Slidell and Mr. Mason, Com-

missioners from Mr. Jefferson Davis, on their

way to this country. In passing through the Old

Bahama Channel she was met by the United States
war steamer San Jacinto, which fired first a round

sonment, of Brit ish subjects have borne him-
self with more p ttience. And for what object
should the United States Government risk a rup
ture with this cormtry? For the miserable gratifi-
cation of getting the persons of two of its adversa-
ries into its poser. The Washington Cabinet has
shown itself szfliciently imbecile, but to authorise
the forcible arrest of gentlemen under the protec-
tion of the British flag would be nothing less than
madness,

Incidents like these ate irritating, but the British
people have the satisfaction of knowing that their
affairs aro under firm guidance. With the irascible
Earl :of Derby or the fussy Lord Malmesbury in
power, we might well be concerned for the inte-
rests of peace at a time like this. But from the
present Government we may expect energy without
precipitancy, and prudence without weakness.
Their course is tolerably clear ; and it will be
for the Government of the United States to deter-
mine what shall be the future relations of the two
countries.

(From the Morning Herald).

Quoit Deus vult perdere, pries dementat. The
conduct of the American Government has long been
such as, to Europeans, scarcely seemed consistent
with the supposition of its being directed by men
in full possession of their senses. The outrages on
the constitution which have been every day perpe-
trated with impunity in every state under the juris-
diction of the Federal Government; the frantic lan-
guage in which its proclamations have been couched;
the extravagance of its boasts, and the imbecile
weakness of its action ; the savage excesses which
its troops have been encouraged to commit in the
border States, by which it has alienated Kentucky,
lost its last chance of preserving Missouri, and exas-
perated Virginia beyond the possibility of forgive-
ness; the wanton extravagance of its tyranny in
Maryland—all seem to proceed from the headstrong
fury of men who never wore under the control of
principle, and. are now beyond the control of reason.
Mr. Lincoln, on his accession to power, was thought
to be an honest, vigorous, straightforward man,
whose firmness of temper might balance his in-
tellectual deficiencies, and whose respect for
law might atone for his utter ignorance of
politics. Unhappily, he has proved himself
not only far more ignorant and unintelligent
than any one imagined him, but utterly wanting in
decision of character, or in conscientious adherence
to the constitution of which he was the appointed
guardian. He has usurped a power beyond the law
to exercise it with a feebleness and vacillation very
naturally allied with frantic and ungovernable rage
against all opponents. Sul inzpotens is the classic
phrase which most accurately describes both his
character and that of his chief friend and adviser.
Mr. Seward's want of common sense, reticence, and
principle, have long been notorious to Americans ;
and recent circumstances have directed to him an
amount of English attention which has made him
equally well understood and despised in this coun-
try. Unhappily, until yesterday, we had not been
able fully to appreciate the extent and depth of his
moral and mental worthlessness. We knew that he
had proposed to " annex" Canada ; but the idea was
to us, who know our strength and the weakness of
the United States, so utterly ludicrous that we did
not, and coal,' not, appreciate the utter folly and
desperate wickedness of the man who could pnt it
forward as a serious proposal. Since then Mr.
Seward has done everything in his power to insult
and exasperate Great Britain ; he has encouraged
the piratical seizure of our ships, he has ordered the
illegal arrest of British subjects, he has directed his
envoys at foreign courts to revile and menace us ?
All this we have borne a little too quietly—the na-
tion has endured it with the patience of contempt ;
the Government, with an indecision which, to Ame-
rican eyes, looked like the irresolution of fear.
The Herald has more than once warned its readers
that more outrage yet might be expected from such
a man, placed in a critical moment at the head of a
nation which has no respect for law or right, and no
idea of the immeasurable superiority of force of the
great European powers. But we confess that we
were hardly prepared for a crime so wanton, an
outrage so flagrant and so unpardonable, as has
just been perpetrated under the orders of the
Cabinet of Washington. Unless Mr. Seward be
simply out of his senses with rage, fear, and help-
lessness—unless he be intoxicated with his own
boastfulness till he really believes his own state
monts—he must be aware that England can,
before a month is passed, destroy or take posses-
sion of every sear ort in the Northern states, raise the
blockade of the Southern coast, and sweep the seas
clear of the Federal flag. And yet, with this know-
ledge, he has ventured on an outrage which ought to
be avenged by the immediate appearance of a British
fleet in the Chesapeake, bringing the alternative of
instant reparation or—war.

(From the Morning Post.)

The Government of the United States has taken
a step of a very serious character. By its direction
the captain of the war-ship San Jacinto has stopped
and boarded the West India mail-steamer Trent,
and has by force of arms seized four of her pas-
sengers who claimed the protection of our flag. The
account of this will be found in another column.
The facts are before the legal advisers of the Crown,
and upon their decision as to the legality of the
proceeding will depend the action of the Govern-
ment.

It would be therefore premature for us to discuss
the consequences of this important event. We may,
however, observe that there can be no doubt that it
is competent for the United States or any other bel-
ligerent Govornment to stop any merchantman on
the high seas, and to seize any soldiers, arms,
despatches, or contraband of war she may convey.
But the question is, can a belligerent search a mer-
chantman, and take out of her what passengers he
may be pleased to seize upon ? The fact of the
Trent being a mail-steamer does not remove her
from the simply commercial class of vessels—ships
of war and transports being alone strictly sacred
from search. The point, therefore, to be deter-
mined in the case of the Trent is simply whether
the British flag covers her passengers, without dis•
tinction of country, so long as those passengers aro
not military, not classable under the definition of
contraband of war.

Our own opinion is that the Federal Government
had a legal right to stop the Trent and to seize
upon contraband of war, under which definition,
we believe, despatches belonging to the enemy are
included. But no such despatches were searched
for, nor, indeed, did the Trent convey any. Four
passengers only, who bore no official character,
were taken out of the ship. We think that this
proceeding was not according to international law.
The opinion of the law officers will, however, very
shortly decide this question.
If we are right, the British Government will
clearly be entitled to reparation and apology, and
no reparation could be complete without the resti-
tution of the passengers taken from lender our flag.
If we are wrong, of course we shall have to submit
to the law. But we shall not the less keenly feel
an affront which must prove to us how little the
Federal Government appreciate the courtesy, dis-
cretion, and generosity with which we have inva-
riably acted.
nations, therefore,
it in
will n:
The arrival of these gentlemen in England could
really be no matter of great moment. Mr. Yancey
T has been here for months—what could it matter if
it
not likely
Mason
to onh aadffe affect
t arrivedthe
safely
precise? andHissettled policy
presence was
case was most gratuitous ;
and if, as we think,
I not
only washi which
we
unwarranted pursue.
he
by the code insult,
of
only be deeply felt but duly resented.

(From the Morning Advertiser.)
The town was startled yesterday by the telegra-
phic communication from Southampton relative to
the capture of two gentleman assumed to be Con-