Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1862-1865, 1863-06-19
The sentinel and the Consuls.

The Sentinel insists that there IS "a wide dinefenCe
between the British Minister at Washington and the
British Consuls in cur midst It says:
"The argument employed by the Why is of the
sort called redgctio ad dbSdU. It attempts 10 prove
that the validity Of the eXequaurs of the Consuls did
not continue after secession, by claiming that on the
same principle We would be obliged now to recognize
Mr. LYONS as British Minister in the Confederate States
We have shown the wide difference between the two
cases We viii merely add that the Uonsuls referred
10 are in our limits, and have continued IN the iu dis
charge Of their duties in their accustomed spheres.
Lord LYONS resides in ioFega country, and mas not
pretended TO discharge junction Of Minister to the
Confederate States lie has chosen 10 confEo himself
10 :he Court and the territory Of the United States and
thus renowned all functions here
Lord LYONS and the Cousus have both continued to
reside where they resided before secession, and he,
veil as they has continued IN the full discharge of his
duties in his accustomed sphere the sphere being al
the States to whose agent he accredited. lie still,
apparently regards that agent as cur representative
aud doubtless still maintains the light to exercise mnis-
teral authority within any of theS aes belonging to ii
Union when he entered upon Lis Office But says the
Sentinel, Lo,d Lyons has not pretended to discharge
one function Of Minister to the Confederate States
but has denounced all functions here. Let Mr. Benl-
min answer the SeRiiad In bis letter to &r. Masop,
Mr. B. says Lord Lyons assumes TIE power to issue in
s.ruetons and exercise authority the COpsul OF
Great Britain residing within this country Is that
uouneing bis functions:
The Sentinel continues
"Supposs at the time of our secession, Lord Lyons
had elaimi to be Engluds representative to Gov
erment as well as 20 that of the United States and had
presented himself here in the discharge of the duties OF
Minister would the Wing have denied his right and
driven him away? Ii not, why drive Consul away,
sbo does discharge his legitimate and acknowledged
duties?
We answer that if Lord Lyons had presented himself
As accredited to this Government he should have been
received So we say of the ConsUls if they had pro
snted themselves to the President or the State Depart
ment es commissioned TO this Government and asked for
exequaurs, they should have been granted But they
have not done this they have right to exercise any
official function within jurisdiction. But, even had
Lord Lyons and The Consus done as supposed, ina
gne the Sentinel would not have expected the arrange
ment to continue long, il corresponding privileges were
denied by Great Britain 10 similar representatives from
this Government
The Sentiaers idea that the Wig has cOniradicted
Itself is imagi airy. We have doubted that the
Consuls bad quasi, pgesumpive right to remain here,
uutil it was ascertaned that we're to be denied the
reciprocal right of official representation in Grea. Br t.
ain. When the arrangement failed Of mutually, it
ceased to be binding on US, and Great Brtains rights
were forfeited.