The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-02 00:00:00

I
P g 4 't, ) % -- - !
11?,
:•,--- , , ;,,,,, ~,,,T•aiql:,Y: ,:.,,,,,,,,,
.( le
4.34,. ;.,«1 11, ri,o,
t'-,_--- ---?:-0.4:-..-- -')-,-;l4s'f*.":P-4/.4iF '
P.-s, , ,0, ,
' - ts - -,,0.,•,-eL.,-
-",

THE SUN.
LONDON, MONDAY, DEC. 2, 1861.

We did not need the telegrams just received to
convince us that the conduct of Captain \VILKES
and Lieutenant FAIRFAX would be hailed by the
American press as " spirited," and deemed worthy
of testimonials from the public and promotion by
the Government. It was spirited no doubt; not
spirited in the military sense—even the Yankees
will hardly see much pluck in a vessel with 13 guns
with a company of marines on board, attacking a
peaceful trader which relied on her character solely,
and not on her force. No, the " spirited conduct"
was shown in the defiance of England ; in taking
doubtful law, as even he must regard it, into his
own hands, and without troubling himself about
prize courts or any such antiquated checks upon
passion and violence, hauling the Commis-
sioners and their secretaries out of a British ship,
while a British captain and a naval officer stood
vainly protesting, " raving" they say, at the illegal
violence perpetrated on their ship. Commander
WILKES is to be placed on a level with the com-
mander of Fort Sumpter—the only point of resem-
blance being that neither of the commanders lost a
man ; the "spirit" in each case cost nothing ; but
there was at least the difference that one incurred
no risk, while the other had a hard fight, although
a lucky one, so far as life was concerned. It was
no doubt a spirited thing to bully the great British
nation; to try how much she would submit to
without fighting, and to presume to the uttermost on
the forbearance which has been hitherto shown by
us to our national offspring. It was spirit too to
show in dealings with England that America still
has citizens " who dare do more than may become

a man."

From the accounts received, it would appear that
Captain WILKES acted very much on his own
responsibility. If the account of the interview with
Gen. Wool, at Fort Monroe be correct, it would
seem that this must be the case. The General
pronounced him right, but added a supposition as
to the personal consequences to the Commander of
having gone too far. This would, of course, prove
that the Captain of the San Jacinto acted under no
special instructions from Washington, It seemed,
indeed, from the course of his voyage that this
could hardly be the case; and the probability is,
that having heard at Havannah of the Commis-
sioners being there, he at once had the " spirit" to
perceive that now was the time to glorify himself
With SEWARD and the Sovereign mob ; the right
might be very, very doubtful, but the praise at New
York and Washington was very certain. And it
was also certain that the greater the wrong—if
only it could be got over without entailing worse
consequences—the greater the praise. Even at the
worst, he would be a greeter man, both at White-
house and with the multitude, if he had to be tem-
porarily cashiered for his brave illegality against
unarmed vessels of neutrals.

We can hardly believe, ho wever, that Lord LYONS
has given public expression to an opinion, that
Messrs. SLIDELL and MASON would be given up to
England, as stated by the Washington correspondent
of the New York Times. It is one thing for him
to feel, no doubt, of what the American Government
ought to do under the circumstances, and quite
another for him, without instructions from home in

so grave a case, to promulge his opinion in the
American press. The New York Herald
quotes a singular precedent as applicable
to the present case, and tells us how
far it thinks its Government may concede, it says :
—" We have a precedent in the action of the British
Government itself in a precisely similar case in the
Irish Rebellion of 1848, when the person of TERENCE
BELLEW N.PMANus was forcibly taken from an
American ship in the harbour of Cork, where he
had taken shelter under the stars and stripes. But
it is evident Commander WILKES was not autho-
rised to make the arrest on board of a British ship
and it is more than probable the Government will
disavow the proceeding, apologise for it, promise
never to do it again, perhaps reprimand the naval
officer for permitting his zeal to outstrip his dis-
cretion. This is all, we think, the English Govern-
ment can fairly demand, if it ever does make any
demand on the subject. As for giving up MASON
and SLIDELL, now that they are in the hands of
our Government, that is another affair, altogether
out of the question."

But it is not denied that had the Trent been in
New York harbour she would have been subject to
the la ws of New York. Indeed, since the war,
arrests have been made in that very harbour on
board a British steamer and the authority not chal-
lenged. If that be the best precedent to be found,
the Americans will find themselves utterly without
excuse, though very likely the distinction they take
may be one which Mr. SEWAItD will take also. There
must have been great eagerness indeed to catch the
persons when a commander could be guilty of such
breach of courtesy at least to get them. Thu fruit
of the insult seems to be the chief object in Atne •
rican eyes; if they can but run off with the sub-
stantial gain of forcibly subtracting two able men
from the South, they do not seem to mind a
little apologising. Fair words would be a cheap
price for the persons of Messrs. SLIDELL and
MASON and their secretaries. Our Government will,
we cannot doubt, think it far too cheap. The two
gentlemen trusted themselves to our protection, not
for a moment doubting its sufficiency, nor can we
avitlelocoutwilodn tittotoloe
rbateei a n sufficient. Nat a state in Europe
similar
it
e attackhose o
ton itsgive
ir e
i
right t ; a ofn d pro-
whomsoevert h eA•mericins will Rad that they have arrayed against
them every Power which has a commercial navy,
whose rights it will maintain as sacredly as the
,oil itself of its country. The men will have to be
given up, as well as an apology made,before the
sense of justice throughout Europe will be satisfied.
For us to accept anything short of this, would
be simply to expose ourselves to general contempt.

The Americans have a strange notion that we would
put up with anything rather than fight with them.
It is, no doubt, due to the strange extant to which
we have put up with all kinds of fraud and violence
at their hands; and, doubtless, we have had self-
command enough to decline fighting to punish every
rudeness and every liberty they have taken with

us. The first tholght, therefore, when they have
outraged us, always is—will England fight about
it. Thus the paps n. above quoted, writing on the
19th, two days later, says :—" It is the duty of
our Government to make preparations for enter-
' gencies. There is little probability that England
will care to risk hostilities with us. It has too little to
gain and too much to lose byfighting with the United
States. But we ought, nevertheless, to be fully
I prepared against any contingency that may arise.
Congress is on the eve of assembling, and the Presi-
dent, in his message, should call at once for 500,000
more men, and appropriations to build, as rapidly
as possible, several hundred vessels of war."
We fear this is the general feeling in the North.
Their rule of behaviour is not what is fair, courteous,
or dignified between two great countries, but how
far they can venture, without provoking us to incur
the hazards and the expenses of war. They have
the strong conviction, too, expressed by the remark
that we have " too much to lose and too little to
get," to hazard fighting with them. Now, it
would be indeed a deplorable thing, if nothing
but actual war would convince them, that they
have more to lose and less to get by fighting with
us. That this is so, the present enormous supe-
riority of our fleet ; the fact that we should now
have half the States of America, whose battle, in
fact, we should be fighting, on our, side ; that
the opening of the Southern ports alone would go a
long way towards paying us for the first expenses
of the war; that Canada is quite as able to defend
herself as was the South when the war began ; all
combine to show.

We may hope, however, that Mr. LINCOLN when
the responsibility lies on him of deciding whether he
must add to the war which already embarrasses him
another with the mightiest naval power in the
world, and, whether he will commence that war
in vindication of what even he must own to be an
extreme interpretation of the right of search,—we
may hope that the President will shrink from such
folly. His only gain will be four prisoners,—for
the right to do the same under similar circumstances
would never be sanctioned by civilized nations.
But he would at once place England and the
South on the best of terms ; the South, through
England, would have that command of the seas
which the North now enjoys. The blockade would
be transferred to the North. All taxes must become
direct, and customs cease—and the American com-
mercial navy be swept from the seas. Surely Mr.
LINCOLN will rather dismiss Mr. SEWARD than run
such vast and useless risks. And all, too, against
a country which has treated him and his cause
with the most honourable neutrality.

We would earnestly suggest an improvement next
session of Mr. SCHOLEFIELD'S excellent Bill for
the Prevention of the Adulteration of Food. With-
out some such emendation as the one we are here
about to explain, that otherwise admirably designed
measure proves, and must still continue to prove,
for the most part inoperative. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Birmingham's Act stands upon the Statute
Book as the 23d and 24th Viet, cap. 84. It
undertakes to put a stop to the Adulteration of
Food and Drink, by imposing a penalty of £5
and costs upon every person selling any article
of Food or Drink, knowing it to contain any in-
gredient injurious to health, or selling as pure
and unadulterated any article which is not pure,
and is adulterated. Another clause of the Act
empowers the proper authorities, upon a second
offence, to publish the offender's name, place of
abode, and offence, at his own expense, in the
newspapers. Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD'S Act, moreover,
duly provides for the appointment of analysts.
Upon the face of nil this nothing apparently could
be more judicious, nothing could be more reason-
ably calculated to prove in every way effectual.
The result has proved, however, quite the contrary.
The Act of Parliament, 23d and 24th VICT., cap. 84,
was passed, as its title intimates, in the session
of 1860. It was passed in that year, in fact, upon
the 6th of August, not long before the session came
to its close. We have had, consequently, just
about a twelvemonth's experience of its operation.
And how has it been found to operate, to the pre-
vention of that Adulteration of Food and Drink,
proved to be so disgracefully and systematically
carried on through almost every trade, when the
articles of trade after trade were scrutinised under
the microscope of the analysts of the famous Com-
mission ? Let the great medical organ answer.
Let us turn to the discissures brought to light in
the Lancet of Saturday. In that paper, in the
course of an elaborate and remarkable Report upon
the Adulteration of Bottled Fruits, Pickles, and
Vegetables a report of which we ourselves
gave an anticipative summary in our im-
pression of Friday evening —it appears
that the system of Adulteration flourishes
still in shameful luxuriance —in spite of
Mr. SCUOLEFIELD'S Act, its pains and penalties to
the contrary notwithstanding ! Again the lens of
inquiry is applied haphazard. And with what
results ? The statistics given in the Lancet's
Report are, beyond doubt, sufficiently painful.
They shew that out of " seven" samples of preserved
greengages that were tested—no less than four of
these samples were found to have been coloured
with copper ! They shew that out of " five"
samples of bottled gooseberries three of them were
proved to contain "that powerful and poisonous
metal !" A chance sample of rhubarb was analysed
—it also had copper in it! Again, out of " ten"
samples of pickles, including amongst them French
beans, gherkins, mixed pickles, and West India
pickles, copper was found, (in several of these in-
stances, in large amount), is seven of the samples
analysed ! Out of " five" tins of preserved peas two of
the samples proved to be impregnated with copper.
Out of " four" samples of green haricot or French
beans, three were highly-coloured with copper, as
was also a sample of mixed vegetables. Thus,
according to the Lancet's Report, out of "Thirty-
five" samples analysed, copper was pieced to be
present, frequently in considerable amount, in no
less than Twenty- one samples ; that is to say in very
nearly two-thirds of the whole number. What
makes the miserable reality of all this all the more
discreditable is the fact of the utter wantonness of
it. The Lancet—a competent witness, certainly—
distinctly asserts that there is no excuse for it
whatever. As it puts the matter, " Bottled and
preserved fruits and vegetables do not in their pre-
paration come in contact with copper at all, and
pickles may be prepared in utensils of iron. The
pickles thus made," it is added, " are less green ;
n gut ht io
the-Vn l.c"
case—the
but the fact of their being of better flavour and
much more wholesome ought to be more than suffi-
cient to counterbalance so trifling a disadvantage."
It is almost superfluous to say, after what has
hero oeen remarked, that the addition of
copper to any vegetable substance used as
parties
the es
23 to d
apar d prosecution."
2eci
an article of food is a violation of the recent act
for the Prevention of Adulteration, and exposes the
ti
pt et.
hr 44v hdcaeutii
ath:a:sa
tsbi
sans
8s
direts
thus
But—such being
or;
still proved to b© rife,• •
indicate, as plainly as any.
thing could indicate it,
that the act, as it now
stands, urgently requires emendation.
What if, instead of authorising
the publication of
the _names, addresses, and offences at the expense