Year: 1863

In referring, few days ago. to the elaborate
speech of Mr.. Senator SUMNER on our Foreign
Relations, stated that to Intervention, as SUCH
he lnterposed no objection based on general prin-
ciples of international obligation On the contra
ry, ne cited it to the praise of England that for so
many years she has interviewed" against slavery.
And it was in this aspect of his argument that we
thought it just to say that the British Govern
ment and people should take different view Of the
moral aspects of the American question from that
taken by Mr. Sumner, he would be, so far as we
could perceive, at the end of his argument" IT, for
Instance, they should convince themselves, how


Ver unreasonsbly or fallaciously in Mr. Summers
Judgment, that the cause Of the slave and the hor
OF his emancipation would be promoted by the eroc
ton OF the Saveholding States into a separate Con-
federacy, they would be merely pursuing the ira
ditlons Of the British Empire by Intervening for his
welfare. We know there are those who have held
the opinion that slavery could not long exist in a
community which, alone in the society of nations,
assumed to be the protectress of that deciduous in
antution hepressure fpubc opinion, it has been
said, would compel its gradual but certain aboiton
Now, If the British people aud Government should
espouse this opinion it seems to us that they ght
however unreasonably injudiciously, make it the
pretext for interfering in our contest and at the
same time claiming that they had been true to that
intervention against slavery" in which Mr. Sum.
ner hnds large share of the past glory of Eng
land. And in SO saying we did not, as a friend in.
Inmates to us, overlook the third head of the dis.
tpguished Senator's argument, in which he shows
that by the practice Of nations, and especially BY
the declared sentiments of British statesmen, there
can be no foreign recognition of an nsurgent Pow
er where the contest for independence is still pend
ing; for we assumed that the conduct of Great
Britain In this matter would, on such theory, be
determined by considerations lying outside of in er-
national law and embraced within the limits Of taoso
moral sentiments" which are sometimes found
expansive enough to include and Justify the inter-
vrnton Of nations in the cause cf bumsnity or free
dom. Our remarks had this extent and no more


We acknowledge the full force of Mr. Summers
reasoning under the third head of his DISCOURSE to
which, as indeed to all its topics, he brings q
erudtion and sffuence of illustration drawn
from the pages of history and literature but We
questioned whether he had strengthened his argu-
ment on this point by the scope which he allows, in
his second head, to Intervention by mediation or
interces where slavery is concerned or where
the Intervention is, as he says, "obviously on the
side of human rights" Mr.. Sumner sees very
clearly that any such Intervention ought to be on
the side Of the Federal Government, as well on DO


tical as on moral grounds but doubt whether the
British people and Government if left free, apart
from the legal aspects of the case to follow the in


stinctve promptngs ofthe British conscience, would
interpret their duties the of human rights"
according to Mr.. Summers views of humanity.
The elements Of the question: in its ethical aspects,
are indeed too complex to be made basis of inter-
national determination and hence as we conceive,
the propriety of con6ning to the letter Of the law
of nations any arguments addressed 10 foreign Co
| VerRments with the view of ascertaning their
duties towards this country in its present compli,
cations.