a locus standi in a prize court in an adjudication consequent upon such captures-it at least cannot be denied that where neutral property is the subject of these irregular proceedings, the neutral is on impregnable ground in demanding an adjudication. Now it is, we believe, a matter of fact that British property has in several instances been disposed of, in the manner described, by these Confederate vessels. Mr. Loring mentions one "notable instance within the im"mediate knowledge of the people of "this city [Boston]; being the case of "the ship Nora, belonging to Messrs. "George B. Upton and Son, eminent "merchants of Boston, which was burned "at sea by the rebel commander and crew of the Alabama, with a valuable "cargo belonging exclusively to British "subjects, and regularly documented as "such, and about the ownership of "which there could be no reasonable 66 pretence of doubt."

66

This being so, what is the position of Great Britain in overlooking such proceedings? Assuming it to be the fact, that the Confederate Government has compensated the owners of these cargoes (and if this has not been done, the case is simply without palliation), is there not some point in Mr. Loring's inquiry -whether "this is all England's duty "in the matter? Is the recovery of 66 money all she owes to her dignity and "self-respect, and all she owes to the "world? Is she to condone piracy "committed on her citizens, in gross "violation of a sacred law of nations, "which if observed, would have pre"vented it." Nor does it diminish the force of these home thrusts, that the mere assertion of her unquesquestionable rights in this matter, would of itself go far to remedy the injury which has been done-done-can we deny it in some degree through our own remissness. Let us endeavour to represent to ourselves this episode in our history, as it will be regarded by an impartial posterity. During a great civil strife between two branches of a kindred nation-into the merits of the cause at issue we, for the moment, forbear to enter-in which strife we pro

fess to observe a strict neutrality, three formidable vessels, in defiance of our authority, and in disregard at all events of the spirit of international law, have issued from our ports. These vessels, built in English dockyards, equipped and armed by English artisans, paid for by a loan raised in the English moneymarket, in part manned by English sailors "an English navy in all but the name and the flag". -now roam the ocean, plundering and burning the property of their adversaries, and, in some instances, our own. The English Government, by simply asserting an unquestionable right, has it in its power, if not at once to arrest their career, at all events greatly to curtail their capacity for mischief; but this assertion of its right it omits to make. When with this omission are coupled the facts, that a portion of the English people has loudly proclaimed its sympathy with the cause of the depredators, and that English shipping is largely a gainer through its comparative immunity from the risks incurred by the belligerent marine, and, lastly, that shameful incident-the cheers which in the English Parliament greeted the announcement, made by the principal violator of the law, of the magnitude of the depredations-when these facts are disclosed on the impartial record of history, what will be the judgment of posterity?will the page be one which future Englishmen will read without a blush?

Nor will posterity fail to contrast our neutrality with the bearing of another neutral under circumstances precisely analogous to ours. We will let Mr. Loring tell the story:

"The first call made upon [the United States] was a crucial test, for it was made by England, her recent oppressor and enemy, for protection against the violation of neutral relations within her territories by or in behalf of the subjects of France, her ally and friend, by whom she had been aided in the war with England, and towards whom the United States felt and acknowledged the strongest obligations.

"In the great war then raging between England and France the English Government entertained, very naturally and with good reason, apprehensions that privateers would be fitted out in the United States to prey upon English commerce under the French

flag; and, their apprehensions being commumunicated to our Government, President Washington in 1793 issued a proclamation forbidding all such violations of neutrality, and stating that instructions had been given to the officers of the United States to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who should violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war or any other. . . . --(P. 15.)

.6

'At the same time the Governors of States were called upon to cause vessels to be arrested if about to depart on any such service; and several were so arrested and prevented from sailing. Prizes which had been taken by such privateers, fitted out and sailing from ports in the United States, were restored to the British owners; and the Government of the United States proclaimed that it held itself responsible to indemnify for such captures.1

"All this was done under a sense of duty as imposed by the law of nations, no Enlistment Act having then been passed. But, in 1794, Congress, with an earnest desire to preserve the strictest fidelity, enacted a statute on this subject for the purpose of compelling the observance of an entire neutrality within the jurisdiction of the United States. And in the same year a treaty was made with England, in which one clause provided that the United States should make indemnity to British owners for vessels which had been previously captured by privateers that had been fitted out in the United States. This Act of 1794 was made immediately after the application of the British Government upon this subject, and for the purpose of insuring the immediate obserrance of a strict neutrality, as was expressly admitted and stated by Mr. Canning in Parliament. And yet we are now coolly told by Lord Palmerston and Earl Russell that England cannot alter her municipal laws to suit other Governments. . . .-(P. 16.)

"The next occasion for the elucidation of the principles of our Government on this subject was in the war of 1854-55 between Russia on one side, and England and France on the other. And here, again, the test was a stringent one, as the utmost cordiality had always existed between the Russian Government and that of the United States.... -(Pp 18-19.)

"Nor has it been left to conjecture how the British Government would think it proper to construe their requisition, or how the United States would interpret their promise to comply with it. During that war the bark Maury, of New York, a mere merchant ship, was fitting out in New York for a voyage to China, and a suspicion having arisen in the minds of the British Consul and some English residents that she was taking in arms and munitions of war to be used in the service of Russia, and

1 There is a slight, but material, omission here the captures for which the United States Government undertook to indemnify were captures brought within its jurisdiction.

the Consul having communicated his suspicions to the British Minister at Washington, and he having made complaint to the Government of the United States-though the evidence submitted on which it was founded was of the feeblest and most unsatisfactory characterthe vessel and cargo were immediately seized by officers of the United States, without the slightest previous notice to the ownes, and were detained until the British Consul and those instigating the seizure were perfectly satisfied that the suspicions where wholly erroneous; and for these he afterwards made a public apology in one of the Gazettes in that city."-(Pp. 19-20.)

Mr. Loring is proud of these passages in the history of his country, and he may well be so. They should not be forgotten by the English people; and, though for a time a cloud seems to have passed over our memory, let us hope that they are but obscured to us, not obliterated. That a section of English society cherishes a rancour towards the Free States of America, at once so violent and so blind that, to gratify it, it is prepared to sacrifice, not only the good faith and honour of the country, but even its plainest and most vital interests, is what, we fear, cannot be denied—for, if ever interest and honour were coincident, it is here. But such passions have, we believe, no place in the minds of the English people; and we are sure that the history of international intercourse with the United States, when under the guidance of those earlier Federal Statesmen, whose traditions it is the aim of the present leaders in the North to restore, needs only to be better known in order to call forth in this country a spirit of justice and conciliation towards the people of the Northern States.

Into the question of restitution and compensation we have not entered: in its practical form it will doubtless present points of some difficulty and nicety of 1793-4 to guide us-a precedent to for adjustment; but with the precedent which neither Federal nor English statesmen can refuse to defer-it will indeed be strange if we cannot arrive at a satisfactory settlement. Of this at least we are certain, that a spirit of mutual fairness and moderation is all that is needed to accomplish this result. J. E. CAIRNES.