The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-07 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 1868.

The debate in the House of Commons last even-
ing respecting our negotiations with the United
States was full of interest and importance. It will
be read with eager attention on both sides of the
Atlantic, and we have reason to congratulate our-
selves that both the people and the Government of
the United States should have so able and tempe-
rate an exposition of the case laid before them as
was contained in Lord STANLEY'S speech last night.
Setting aside the ill-placed and unworthy taunts by
which Mr. SnAw LEFEVRE endeavoured to intro-
duce into the discussion the elements of party bit-
terness and political hostility, Lord STANLEY,
with the calmness and good sense which dis-
tinguish alike his policy and his language, declared
that no man had a stronger sense than he had
of the importance to both countries of a settle-
ment of all international differences. "We have,"
said the noble lord, " vast commercial relations
with the United States, a long line of continuous
frontier ; we meet and cross one another in every
part of the globe ; we have on both sides an enor-
mous load of bebt, which neither can wish to in-
nut while rParlil, samAxm.o7,lcAsins tMcs, the
noble lord asserted that, in his opinion, indiscrimi-
nate resistance and indiscriminate concession were
equally mischievous. What we had to do was to
find out the strict rights of the case, to endeavour
to do justice to it ourselves, and to appeal to a cor-
responding spirit in those with whom we had to
deal. The great American people are not
to be treated like children, to be humoured
and yielded to because they cannot bear contradic-
tion and cannot understand argument. So far
from the feeling on this side of the Atlantic being
averse to any amicable settlement, Lord STANLEY
declared his belief that the reaction was so strong
that we were almost ready to accuse ourselves of
faults we had never committed. The feeling in the
Northern States at the time of the war had un-
doubtedly been bitter against this country, but, as
the noble lord justly remarked, the fact was that
they had looked for physical neutrality and moral
support. But the passions of the time have passed
away, and all parties may rejoice that the difficult
and onerous duty of adjusting this long-pending
dispute has fallen to the lot of a statesman
so eminently qualified to deal with it. Lord STAN-
LEY'S arguments are unanswerable, and he supports
them by citations from the despatches of American
Ministers and diplomatists themselves on similar
questions. Thus, in 1849, the United States Go-
vernment proposed to recognise the revolutionary
Government of Hungary, not merely as a bellige-
rent, which is all the recognition which England
accorded to the Confederacy, but as an established
thing. The Austrians complained of this, where-
upon Mr. WEBSTER, one of the most eminent of
American statesmen, replied in the following terms :
" That if they had done so, though the step
would have been precipitate, and one from
which no benefit would have resulted, it
would not, nevertheless, have been an act
against the law of nations, provided they took no
part in the contest against Austria." Well might
Ldrd STANLEY, after quoting these words, ask
whether they did not go immeasurably further than
anything which had come from us ; and the cheers
of both sides of the House spoke his answer.
Again, when Texas, in 1836, was fighting for its
independence, a similar controversy arose about
the admission to New York of a vessel bearing the
Texan flag. The Foreign Minister of the United
States defended the admission in writing to the
Mexican Government in these words :—" It has
never been held necessary as a preliminary to the
extension of the rights of hospitality to either party
that the chances of war should be balanced, and
the probabiiity of eventual success deter-
mined. For this parpose it has been deemed
sufficient that the party had declared its
independence,
and was at the time actually main-
taining it." The South had not only declared its
independence in May,
1861, but was maintaining
it with such vigour that two months later they
threatened Washington. If such be the doctrine
distinctly enunciated by American statesmen and
diplomatists, how can they, asks Lord STANLEY,
contend that an independent State ought to submit
to pay a fine if its discretion has been unwisely
used? Stronger than any other illustration, how-
ever, were the words quoted from Mr. SEWARD
himself. The great offence of English statesmen
was in calling the rebels belligerents, and the rebel-
lion a civil war. What says Mr. SEWARD on the 4th