Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1863-11-27
T,i;h lai,s vtSh9;.

VI tblak j. no. ofl5 pos:ibis, bas eF6a
probab,S, lha. tic new steam rams OF TIC FIN
| peror Of China, or cf -:hs Pachn OF Egypt,
will vet be allowed to depart for their dcst'na-
ton. The simultaneous acLio2 both OF tho
English aud the French Governments, in de-
timing those vessels until the questions
arising upon them shall be determined by thu
Courts of law, proves nothing except the eA :
treme caution of those two Powers in avoid
ing anything which might seem an intractlon
of the laws of neutrality. England, espe>
cially, is strongly interested in keeping out OF
war; and she has hitherto been able to per-
suade the Emperor of the French to act along
with hor in all matters pertaining to our
American affairs.
Yet France has not by any means the same
degree of interest in that policy that Eng
land has. Franco has no such precious COM
merco spread over all seas, inviting Yankee
privateers. France has no Ireland by her
side, with the prospect Of an army of "Fe-
nian Brothers" landing upon its shores in case
of war. On the other hand, France has in"
terests in an opposite direction, urging her to
strengthen and establish Southern Confede-
racy between Mexico and the Yankee nation.
In fact, tho entente cordiale is quite as hollow
on this hemisphere as on the other; but 1t
still stands, and we may expect to see the two
nations yet Ia little while moving pari pass'',
and in the same direction.
But there arc signs that this detention Of
| the iron vessels in England. may do no moro
| than occasion delay. Lord Palmerston's spe-
cial nenman of the ''Post" has long article
| on the pubject-the drift of which is that in
all probability tho courts may pronounce the
detention of the rams to be Illegal; and that
in that case there ought to be no new legisla-
ton, in time Of war, to aid one bclligerent
apainss another. The "Post" thus balances
the question:
"On the one hand the future interests Of
this country must be regarded. and on the
other, the obvious Infringement OF the spirit
| if not of tho letter. of neutrality, by legisla-
| ting to meet the requirements OF one OF the
contending parties. On the one side, policy
and international law impress the necessity OF
| preventing vessels intended 10 be used against
| friendly State leaving cur shores. On the
other, honor and dignity dissMfe from intro
ducing changes which can operate only against
tho weaker of the two belligerents, between,
whom we are DESTROYS of standing perfectly
neutral. The position is difficult one tor the
| British Government. and 1t may not be lrss so
fer the Legislature"
Then comes the last ard most significant
paragraph. in which the government news
paper expresses real opinion
The act is silent about the ilding Of
ships, and prohibits solely their l4$ag armed
or euuipped with the object of being used
against = friendly State. But does the build
ing Of q vessel which can be employed as u
ram for running down others constitute an
infringement of the act? Some say yes,
whilst other no less respectable authoritle'
say no. Surprising the courts of law say no.
ought the Legislature to interpnse and supply
the deficiency in the law? This question
NAV, in fact, be submitted to tic Legislature
and if 81 its reply will demand the exercise
Of the greatest prudence and the greatest dis
I elimination. TO our mind the most fitting
answer which conld he given would he to the
effect that this country had framed its laws
with the view of enforcing neutral cbiiga
tons, and that if those laws are proved to be
defective it must await time when suitable
modification can be introduced without preju
dice to the interests of n particular State"
Here Lord Palmerston's organ not only de-
precates any new law made expressly to hold
these vessels; but implies that such new le-
gislation cannot now be made without pre-
iudice to the interests of C particular State"
Then the Confederacy ID q particular State
ard the Federal Union another. Then this il
not q "civil war;" nor a rebellion" If not;
if we arc two nations or States foreign to
one another, what is the excuse for declining
to acknowledge that THEORETICALLY?