The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-08

msut fnr q recognition OF the Southern Confederacy.
and, even while Mr.. Adams was on his way to Lon
don, the British Parliament was discussing 'rha
general effect OF the common and statute law" ON
the recognition OF beliperent rights to the insur-
gents. and 1t assumed by all the speakers that
the rebel government might lawfully issue letters OF
marque.
On the morning OF May IS the Queens proclama-
ton OF neutrality between the belligerents was
issued, and later IN the day Mr. Adams arrived In
London. so that the British government showed
UNDUE HASTE IN RECOGNIZING THE SOUTH.
against its own pledges and promises not to do 80
until the United States had had time to present ts
state OF the controversy careful examination OF
the published correspondence and speeches OF Lord
John Russell shows that at that time Her Majestys
government was by no means certain that there
was war IN the United States. And even up 10
June l. 1861. ne seems to be In doubt, and speaks
OF 1.-The contest which appears to be immi-
nent" between the United States and the
so-styleo Confederate States OF North Ame-
rica whereas the Queens proclamation OF
May 13 previous alleged that this war had
'unhappily commenced between them" The effect
Of this proclamation was well known, AMI In the
Parliamentary debates 1t was admitted there would
be thousands OF privateers lowering about the
1
that any British subjects entering the service Of
either belligerent "would be liable to be punished
for q violation o. the laws Of his own country
be ought not to ne regarded as pirate for acting
under q commission from State admitted to be
entitled TO the exercise OF beigerent rights and car
rying on what might be called Justlns betuns--a
righteous war;" The plea OF ignorance on the part
OF Great Britain Is therefore entirely removed The
British government knew what 1t was doing ana
knew exactly what the effect OF its action would be-
upon this country AMI, with Its eyes open, 1t as
sumed. morally and legally, the responsibility there
for. And the United states government IL COM
PEELED to view this acr, or series OF acts as I'M
friendly aud committed In an unrriendly spirit To-
ward this country.
But this unfrleudliness and hostility toward the
United States 10 still further shown In the DISCUSSION
as to declaraurns OF the Congress OF Paris, the
instructions to Lord Lyons In Washington. which
might have been, and doubtless under other Cir
cumstances would have been, regarded as cause Of
war.
THE HISTORY OF THE PARIS CONGRESS
and Its declaration is next presented to the United
States in making out It's case to show the altitude
OF Great Britain and this country on the subject Of
privateerlng and the exemption OF priva property
from capture the high by nations In q state
OF war. Our government then comes down TO the
negotiations and correspondence between this gov
eminent ana Great Britain and to similar
negotiations and correspondence between Great
Britain and the Confederacy in regard
to the Paris declaration; ana from Mr..
Adams dispatches to Mr.. Seward the double
dealing and bad fa>l Of Lord John Rus
sell Is shown throughout our struggle. In
striking contrast Is the conduct of Great Britain TO-
ward the United States In the Trent AFFAIR ana TO
ward violation OF British neutrality In the rebel in-
terest. This conduct was very forcby though
quantity illustrated by M. Rolin- Jacquemyns VINO
declared that 'Ihe ideal OF the neutral party that
Of the judge who, IN the story OF the tgants about
an oyster, swallowed the contents OF the mousc aud
awarded the shells TO the two beligerents He De-
longs to no party, but scrupulously fattens himself
at the expense OF BOTH" This witness is undoubt-
edly true and he faithfully portrays the policy Of
Great Britain In this affair.
The unfriendy feeling OF the British Cabinet to-
ward the United States is also evinced by their
speeches and public addresses as cited by our gov.
eminent In this case, and the conclusion arrived at
by our government IS that Great Britain could not
under such circumstances and that 1t did not
strive to repress the attempts OF British subjects
and OF other persons violate the neutrality OF
British soil ana waters OF the rebels. Thus
far IN regard to wnal Great Britain did neutral
now as to what she should have done ana observed
toward the United states On this branch OF the
subject our government, In further presenting Its
case 10
THE TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION
shows from British statutes-especally the Foreign
Enlistment act OF 1919 and It's amendment IN 1870.
and the judicial construction thereof-that Her No
jesty's government knew exactly what was required
oil neutrals and yet failed TO observe It's own laws
International law, which Is a part OF the common
law OF England also bound IT, and the duties recog
nIzed by the Queens proclamation OF neutI atty,
above referred to, as well as tho de1ni-
ton OF neutrality by her own Courts,
bound her to entire abstinence from any par
tcipation in the war and the exercise OF Inn
partial conduct toward both begerents. And this
abstinence and this impartiality must be combined
In the character or o bona Hde neutral This Is the
definition of neutrality laid down by Chief Justice
Phillmorc on the Enlistment act. These duties
were recognized also by England In Its instructions
to British officials during the insurrection and
IN its correspondence with this government In
1854 and In the treaty OF November IL. l794 and
In the construction OF that treaty By the c0mmla-
~