The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1861-12-17
The Position of England in the Matter Of
Mason and Slidell.

IAdoOA duu DlluCll.
just what the Instructions are which have
been sent out by the British Ministry to Lord
Lyons, relative to The affair of the Trent, remain
yet in doubt, though we have foreign newspa-
per authority for a very belligerent version Of
them. Its, however, admitted that the Europa
was detained twelve hours on account Of the
news by the Persi4, and that the first draft of
instructions was probably modified. As we
havn't, therefore, precisely the official position
Of England on this seizure, We can only make
guesses at it from the statements of their press.
The London Times states it thus
The principle on which the Government
rests its demand is that q British ship must, un-
I'll her violation of neutral rights i, fully proved,
be held to be British ground as much as if she
were an actual piece OF British soil, and the
night Of protection to all persons on board is as
valid as on British territory. Now no such VI
olation has been proved or sought to be proved
against the Trent, consequently the seizure Of
iour persons, dragged from her decks, was en-
TREY illegal"
That paper also gives the opinion Of the law
ciseers Of the crown as follows:
1t is. we understand, the opinion Of these
jurists that tho right of the Federal Govern
ment, acting by its officers, was confined to the
visiting and the searching Of the mail packet
that ii any men or things believed to be con-
trAband of war had been found on board of her,
She proper course was to take her into port and
submit the question to the prize courts, which
would hear evidence and argument on both
sides, AMI would have decided the case accord
ing TO precedent and authorities"
It will be seen from these extracts that, by
English authority itself, the protest against the
&C: Of Capt. Wilkes is directed mainly to the
manner and forms through which Capt. Wilkes
exercised the right of seizure or. to use u famil
iar expression, that he took tn matter into his
W hands instead of referring it to the courts.
Although this at first seems but a t%riHing dis
I%lnction: it is, in fact, u very wide and clear
snc,--just as clear and obvious as the distinc-
ton between the right Of rcdressing one wrongs,
or asserting ones rights under our laws
by force, and doing The same thing through the
instrumentality OF the law. 1t is just the dis
tinction between u legal proceeding and Il law
less one.
There must be a right and wrong to the ques.
ton, which can BIZ determined by reference to
The proper authorities though we are appre-
hensive that tho diplomatic correspondence in
connection with 1t, will get cntangled if not con-
fused by the differing views Of England and
sAis Country in respect to the rebellion, one
treating the rebels MS belligercnts, the other
simply as insurgents. When we seek to justify
Capt. Wilkes act, we must DO it in the light of
aux own treatment Of the rebellion Tho act
u Capt. Mikes was an assertion OF power on
she part of our Government and it must stand
or fall by our rights and not by the wrong of
England. This Nation cannot with proper self
respect justify Capt. Wilkes by quoting the
policy of England towards the rebellion, until
they are prepared to say that that policy is abb
soluteiy right and We apprehend thoy are not
quite prepared to admit that yet.
The question ought to be discussed temperate
IL. and, as far as the official COMMUNICATION
between the two Governments arc conceiLtd
no doubt will be, avoiding all tic passionate
zeal which will 80 largely enter into the har-
argues at public meetings, and the cbuliitions
and buster of the press. Every person in the
interest Of JEFF. Davis, OF both sides Of the wa.
ter, will do all he possibly can to bring about O
war, and widen as far as possible the breach be
ween Tic TWO nations and this 'act ought tt