The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-14 00:00:00

UST.

_ENGLAND AND AMERICA.

In the midst of the torrent of vituperation poured
out against England by the journalists and letter-
writers of the United States a most satisfactory ex-
ception may be cited in the case of the New York
Commercial Advertiser, the oldest evening paper in
that city. It has had several logical articles on the
question of privateering and belligerent rights, and
the latest numbers contain the following, which are
said to be from the pen of one of the most eminent
lawyers in the State :
" Vessels sailing under letters of marque from Jefferson
Davis must be regarded either as privateers or pirates, and
to avoid the latter alternative the belligerent attitude or
character of the Southern Confederacy is to be recognised
by England. Lord John Russell cites a precedent for this
course, and supports the policy with arguments, The idea
of the British Government clearly is, that as the conflict
has assumed a magnitude which takes the rebellion out of
the category of riots or merely local disturbances, and that
practically the two sections of the repub!ic are at war with
each other, it is not for England to refuse to both the rights
which belong to parties or nations holding that relation
towards each other.
"At the first glance this recognition of the rebels as
belligerents seems to be in their favour. But there is a
view which our contemporaries seem to have overlooked.
This giving to the Southern Confederation the status of a
belligerent State gives to the Government of Washington
an unquestioned right to blockade the ports of the rebellious
States. It carries this with it as a necessary sequence.
Admit that they are belligerents, and you admit also the
right to blockade the ports by well-known provisions of

international law. And a perusal of the speeches of the

various members of the British Cabinet shows that they
fully appreciate the consequences of this step. With reser-
vation of tho universally admitted principle that a blockade
can only be deemed valid when it is effective, Lord John
Russell concedes the whcle matter of blockading—' I have
no doubt that there would be no difference between the Go-
vernment of her Majestc and the Government of the United
States on that point.' What, therefore, at first seems an
advantage to the South really becomes an advantage to the
North.

" We regard the explanations given by British Ministers
in both Houses of Parliament as highly satisfactory, and
should the further consultations with the law officers, and
the despatches carried out by the new American Minister,
lead the English Government to stop at the point they have
reached—as we are almost certain they will—we can see
little or no danger of trouble in that quarter. There has
been nothing said, nothing hinted, by that Government
about recognising the nationality or independence of the
revolted States, and we feel sure that no such intention
exists. Although regarding them as belligerents, England
has not yet conceded to their privateers the further rights
which would belong to the privateers of a recognised na-
tionality. She fully admits our right to blockade their ports
so long as we make it effectual. She declares her purpose
of maintaining a strict neutrality, and her Sovereign is about
to issue a proclamation that any British subject entering the
service of Southern privateers, or otherwise taking part in
the contest, must abide by the consequences of his act, and
will receive no protection from his Government in case of
capture by either of the belligerents. More than this we
could hardly expect. . . .
" Great Britain will not judge the right of the contro-
versy. She will respect actual facts. She will deal with the
acts of the Secession States as a matter of fact, and not of
principle. Can she do otherwise ? Would we submit to her
doing otherwise I If we were to insist upon her judging of
the contest, we should admit her right of judging. If she
has a right to decide on this as a question of principle, then
we must consent to her deciding as she may judge fit, for we
cannot insist that she shall form a judgment only on condi-
tion of its being in our favour.
" She must judge whether war is levied so as to differ
from mere private marauding. But when such a war—
treasonable, rebellious, or not—is levied so as to embrace
armies, to comprehend large organised districts, and to call
for the outpouring of the whole strength of the parent
State, she can but regard and admit the fact. She is not
to punish the treason or to put down the rebellion. She is
not the keeper of our honour or the guardian of our nation-
ality. These are things that we do for ourselves, nor will
we admit a foreign interference of that kind for or against us.
" To what does it lead, that she recognises the Secession
States as belligerents ? She will not treat their citizens as
pirates ; but she will not prevent our doing so. They would
not be pirates by the public law, although they would by
the law of the nation to which they belong and from which
they attempt to revolt.
" It leads also to trade with these Secession States so far
as neutrals may; consequently British ships will protect
their property if part of their cargoes, as neutral ships may
But they will not protect the property which is contraband'
They will not override a blockade. This would be far more
than treating them as belligerents. It would be at once an
abandonment of neutrality and an act of war; while neu-
trality, or non-interference, is the sentiment of all the lead-
ing men of Great Britain.

" The principle of treating the Secession States as belli-
gerents relieves the United States from reclamations for law-
less acts, under Secession auspices, upon British property.
If Great Britain allows that Georgia is a belligerent and
at war with the United States, the latter cannot be held
accountable for insults to British ships and mariners in the
ports of that revolted State, or for robberies on the high
seas by Secession cruisers. Against them England, if she
believes in their pi obable existence, will do well to despatch
her cruisers, for the United States are no longer to be held
liable for those who are recognized as at war with the
United States.

"Is there indeed any fear that Great Britain will inter-
fere or abandon her neutrality ? She would thereby at
once lose the advantage which neutrals always have in the
carrying trade. She would lose the trade of the enter-
prising twenty millions of free persons North and West for
the half number of mixed free and slave population South.
Sho would act against the great sentiment of all her popula-
tion, the cotton manufacturers excepted. By protracting
the struggle by her interference she would force the cotton
States to lessen the cotton culture in order to raise provi-
sions, and would embarrass herself with allies who, if the
first to fawn, have been the longest to hate. It cannot be
easily conceived that Great Britain could adopt a policy so
shortsighted, as well as unprincipled, as to interfere for the
Secession States or to depart in their behalf from impartial
neutrality.

" Away with this distrust of England. She is our loyal
friend, our natural ally, long forbearing with our wayward
dealings, and more closely connected in intercourse, feeling,
and interest, than she can be with any other people. Her
honour, her sentiments, her conduct towards us for a long
series of years forbid all timorous fears respecting her
position in the crisis."

THIS _DAY'S MARKETS.