grounds for their brag, and appeared to give evidence of energy and pluck; because it directed attention from the seat of the contest, and the ill luck that had attended efforts there, to an act rash and hardy indeed, but such as might bear a double interpretation, one to Europe and another to America; because it gave them possession of the persons of the Commissioners of those whom they must denominate rebels, and so, especially considering how they were got, gave them a great advantage over the Southerners. These things prove that it was expedient, and expediency justifies everything in war.-G. M.

The [so-called] American outrage needs no "Devil's Advocate," as the Times has been pleased to stigmatize those who oppose its dicta regardingit. It is quite justifiable on other grounds, when viewed dispassionately. Britain ostentatiously proclaimed neutrality, and claimed credit for its magnanimity in so doing. One of its officers aided and abetted the breach of blockade, and became knowingly an accessory of the Confederates. He was justly regarded as a violator of the self-proclaimed neutrality, and as having voluntarily placed himself in the ranks of the enemy. The United States Government could not recognize an officer who had thus treated his sovereign's proclamation, as one likely to experience that sovereign's approbation, sanction, and encouragement. Knowing he was acting illegally in having on board parties bearing the official character which Slidell and Mason did, they of course arrested him on the highway of nations, and demanded a restitution of their rebellious subjects. America requires really no justification, for she did exactly what common sense grants is a common right-made good her claim to contraband of war by the power of war. The so-called outrage was in itself perfectly, unexceptionably justifiable.-A BRIGHT-UN.

The patient magnanimity of Britain need not be much disturbed because his little boy cousin, smarting with pain,

has done a foolish and reprimandible action. There are occasions on which feelings become controlless, as if by the inflow of a sudden madness; and the efforts made for extrication from difficulties are not always the wisest that a cool judgment could foresee. All great victories have been just on the verge of failure and ridiculousness, but, having succeeded, they have been the means of magnifying the names of their gainers. The United States Government must live just now, if they live at all, upon sensations. Nothing else or less will satisfy the intense (however stupid) egotism of its subjects. To create a dashing sensation anywhere is quite possible by an attack on John Bull, and so the sensation-farce was got up. A few smooth strokes of Jonathan's political flatterers, and sly indications of the exigencies of the hour, will secure forgiveness, and a great object is gained -striking momentary success, something to boast about, and time to see if anything can really be done to bring the Southerns to their senses. If the end sanctifies the means, and the end be obtained, the means are evidently justified.-JOB MELON.

Ordinary laws are made for ordinary circumstances. Extraordinary events are always a law unto themselves. Farther embroilment the United States desired to avoid; farther embroilment was the wish of the Southerns. They sent Commissioners to heighten the war, by inflaming Britain and France, and by suggesting a policy of interference to these powers. To widen the war was obviously to the minds of the Federals impolitic, and so they thought it more advisable to seize the Confederate Commissioners. This, let it be admitted, proved that they had little faith in the justice or policy of their own cause, or they would never have striven to repress the free and full discussion of the question by neutral powers. Conceiving a breach of peace imminent, the Federalists thought that the first effort of power might win their object, and hence the risk was advisable, and the

act justifiable. Whether their view of the question was too narrow we do not require to discuss; but if they wished to quash inquiry as to the inherent grounds of the so-called rebellion, they could not do otherwise than seize the Commissioners of their opponents anywhere and anyhow.-JOPPA.

If, knowing the character and commission of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, the captain of the Trent became accessory after the fact, to the running of the blockade, he transgressed the neutrality of which his country had made proclamation; if, knowing the law of nations, that it protected only the innocent, and exerted itself in nought for the safety of the partakers in strife and warfare-the captain of a vessel carrying her Britannic Majesty's mails, willingly undertook to harbour the plotters of rebellion, and to guarantee the safety of the British flag to them, and took the Secessionists under the Union Jack, he exceeded his commission; if, a mere mail and merchant vessel, the Trent aided and abetted belligerents or rebels not seeking asylum, but asking leave to carry out farther the war or rebellion which had arisen, she withdrew by that act from the submission she owed to the proclamation of neutrality, and so lost her right to British protection; if all these virtuous "ifs" be right-and who can dispute them?-then the Wilkites are right, and the seizure was just.-IOTA.

Daring is always a commendable quality. The heroic is not too cominon in our day. Wilkes knew that "thin partitions do the bounds divide" between the sublime and the ridiculous, and he wisely trusted that the undiscerning mob would not perceive the difference. He was right. The laudations of the Yankee press are sky high," and "everlastingly atop" of anything airthly. There was such heroism in capturing unarmed men on an unarmed vessel as Yankees only can misunderstand. He who serves fools must himself be foolish, or at least willing to wear cap and bells, and this Com

modore Wilkes is quite inclined to do. If to do in and for a democratic society what the democracy wants is justifiable, then Wilkes was justifiable in seizing Messrs. Mason and Slidell. Whether it was wise is another question, which we would answer in a different style. Wisdom is justified of her children, but so also is folly; and in this case Wilkes seems to have been Folly's darling child and dear delight, and is justly entitled to be regarded as the Yankee's pride.-J. J. L. T.

66

No man, however highly favoured, mentally or physically, but has some weak part, where an enemy's thrust is effective. As with man, so with nations. The "Marseillais Hymn' played in the streets of Paris, or Boyne Water" in the lanes of Dublin, will evoke expressions of feeling similar, and yet dissimilar; for in both cases the vulnerable part of the people will have been touched. So with regard to England. Insult to her flag, whether fancied or real, at once raises the ire of its people, of whom it must be said that they delight in war. We have a striking example of this in the recent Trent case. Certain Commissioners of the Southern States of America, having run the blockade, while on board a British ship bound for St. Thomas, were seized by the captain of the San Jacinto, and forcibly taken from under the British flag. The insult, as it was styled, was communicated to headquarters, and within twenty-four hours thereafter was discussed and commented on throughout the land, whereever two or three were met together, and the universal voice of the people, probed in a vulnerable part, was, that the disgrace involved a casus belli.

On calmly considering the subject, however, throwing aside all prejudices for a flag of which we are all justly proud, the mountain will dwindle down into a molehill, and the disgrace, if any, will not appear to have that magnitude which was originally assigned to it. That the officers of a belligerent war cruiser have the right

"of searching and visiting any ship, to whatever State it may belong, whatever be its cargo, and whatever be its destination," and of seizing all contraband goods, if intended for the enemy, found in such ship, is acknowledged by all international law writers; and not only so, but, as Lord Stowell says, they have the power to stop their enemy's ambassadors en route to a foreign port. But with regard to the Trent, the question arises, can Commissioners carrying hostile despatches be considered contraband of war? This has been ably answered by General Scott. "If," says that gentleman, speaking of the Southern Commissioners, "they were, as all authorities coneur in admitting, agents of the rebellion, it will be difficult to satisfy impartial minds that they were any less contraband than a file of rebel soldiers, or a battery of hostile cannon." And as to the seizure of despatches, our own Government should be the last to throw out any objection to that taking place, even though it should be from one of its own ships, from the fact that when we were at war with Russia, the British Government issued a proclamation,* wherein it was declared that "it is impossible for her Majesty to forego the exercise of her right of seizing articles contraband of war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's despatches."

But it has been asserted that the captain of the San Jacinto, on having ascertained that the Trent had on board Messrs. Mason and Slidell, the Southern Commissioners, his proper course was to have taken the Trent to the nearest port, and had the question settled by an Admiralty Court. But had this been done, there would have been more noise raised than has been, for mails and passengers would have been detained for days; and supposing the Commissioners to have been declared contraband of war, they would have been seized, although covered by the Union Jack.

*March 28, 1854.

There can be no doubt but this would have been the most legal mode of procedure; but as it has happened otherwise, the Americans may justly say, Your flag covered rebels with rebel despatches, thereby, by the law of nations, incurring the liability of confiscation. From our pacific relations, however, with you, we were unwilling to take what the law entitled us to claim; and as the persons of Messrs. Mason and Slidell were all we wished, you cannot charge us with any unfriendly feeling in only taking a part when we were entitled to the whole.MARS.

NEGATIVE.

The seizure of the Confederate Commissioners on board the Trent, by the commander of the San Jacinto, is an act contrary to all the known and recognized principles of "international law." Notwithstanding the admitted legal ability of Mr. Edwin James, our ex-M.P., and disgraced Q.C., the master of the Trent had not infringed the Queen's proclamation, recognizing the declared blockade of the Southern ports; nor did it come within the line of his duty to acquaint himself with the characters of his passengers, and to refuse conveyance to the Confederate Commissioners.

Were such proceedings necessary in order to the observance of a strict neutrality, it would likewise be our duty to refuse passage in our ships to any of the distinguished personages of the Federal Government, who might desire transit to British ground, lest capture and seizure by Southern privateers should be their ignominious fate. What would the American press have said, supposing such an event had occurred to them?

Had the Trent sailed from a Southern port, in defiance of the nominal blockade, or even from one of the Northern ports of the "Union," some grounds would then have existed, not only for the act complained of, but for ultimate confiscation. But that a British vessel,

bound from one neutral port to another neutral port, in neutral waters, should be waylaid, fired at, boarded, and robbed, is an act of piratical Yankeeism which none but the wilfully blinded would attempt to justify.

The American Press, however,-having, as it would appear, unanimously agreed to the distortion of legal facts, for the purpose of upholding the rash proceeding of Commodore Wilkes,-has served to inflame the passions of the people to such an extent, that were the National Government now to attempt to stem the tide of popular feeling, disown the act of Wilkes, and restore the captive commissioners, the death knell of the Lincoln Cabinet would at once be sounded, and "Secessionia" probably receive a large addition to its ranks.-S. J. R.

Whether this act is viewed as committed on board an ordinary vessel, the property of a neutral power, or a neutral vessel conveying her Majesty's mails, in charge of an officer of the navy, we believe it to have been illegal -alike contrary to the law of nations, and the recognized rights of neutral powers. To justify the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board of a neutral vessel, the United States Government should recognize the Southern Confederacy as a belligerent power, with which it was at war; but of this plea that Government has, by its proceedings and tone, entirely deprived itself. In 1848, the United States Government admitted the principle that vessels carrying the mails should be free from molestation, and, by a solemn compact with England, agreed that, even if war was declared, no such molestation should take place until after the expiration of upwards of a month from the declaration of hostilities. England is not at war with America. No such declaration has even, up to the present, been promulgated, and, therefore, even according to her own laws, America had no authority whatever to stop the progress of the Trent-admittedly a mail vessel-and forcibly remove from her those who had placed themselves under

the protection of her flag; and the captain of the San Jacinto might just as well have seized Mason and Slidell on the soil of England as where he did, so far as the legality of the act is concerned.-G. H. S.

However difficult the question may appear to be, it is easy to perceive that it possesses two phases: 1st. Was the seizure of the Southern Commissioners justifiable, in a legal point of view. 2nd. If so, was the manner of performing it justifiable, according to the law of nations. That law recognizes the right of belligerents to visit and search the ships of neutral powers in quest of contraband of war, usually defined as ammunition, guns, stores, or any other materials for warlike uses. If such be found, a seizure is legal, and the merchant cannot expect the protection of his Government. But were Messrs. Mason and Slidell and their despatches "contraband of war"? This we deny, on the simple grounds that they were not military or naval officers, proceeding to any port for hostile purposes; but unarmed diplomatists, sailing from a neutral port, in a neutral vessel, to a neutral shore. It might have been, for aught the Northerners know, to pray the mediation of France and England in the awful strife now raging in America. This point alone we deem sufficient to show that the Trent seizure was not justifiable in a legal point of view. Again, there is the etiquette of society, and quite as important as that is the etiquette of nations. It is usual for a commander to fire a blank cartridge when he wishes to stay another vessel. For this Captain Wilkes substituted shot and shell, boarding the Trent with men with drawn weapons, in the most insolent manner, forcing the Commissioners into his boat contrary to all order and custom, thus making the deed an act of wanton piracy. It is quite clear, however, that the morals of the American people have sunk to so great a depth, that they possess the most defective views of the wide distinction between vice and virtue, and draw

the line of demarcation between right and wrong with a reckless and wayward hand.-HARWOOD.

For my part I can see no possible way of getting out of the two following propositions: that, 1st, Messrs. Slidell and Mason were not, according to the maritime law of nations, liable to seizure by the United States Government; and that, 2nd, had they been liable to arrest, Captain Wilkes's procedure in the affair was flagrantly unwarrantable. On the one hand, the shelter the Commissioners sought under the British flag was legitimate. They were by no definition contraband of war; they were neither military officers engaged in the actual furtherance of the war, nor were their despatches addressed to any parties engaged in the war. The design of the belligerent "right of search" is "the prevention of the military measures of one belligerent by another;" it is not intended to interfere with the regular trade of neutral vessels, or to prevent neutrals maintaining their relationships with belligerents. "This design is presumably promoted by the capture of despatches from the belligerent Government to its subordinates, or from those subordinates to the belligerent Government, for these probably relate more or less to the conduct of the war. But it is not presumably promoted by the capture of a despatch from a belligerent to a neutral." "The neutral country has a right to preserve its relations with the enemy," and, in consequence, "the private subjects of a belligerent State may be safely carried on board a neutral vessel. It is part of her ordinary carrying trade, from which she is no more to be debarred in time of war than from the carriage of silks or cottons to an open port of a belligerent." The Commissioners were more than "private subjects of a belligerent state," they were envoys despatched on a special mission to neutral powers," and this fact should entitle them to additional protection at our hands. President Davis, his message to the Confederate Congress, although a prejudiced

66

party, takes a very proper view of the case. "The United States have claimed a general jurisdiction over the high seas, and, entering a British ship, sailing under its country's flag, violated the rights of embassy, for the most part held sacred, even among barbarians, by seizing our ministers whilst under the protection and within the dominion of a neutral nation. These gentlemen were as much under the jurisdiction of the British Government upon that ship, and beneath its flag, as if they had been on its soil; and a claim on the part of the United States to seize them in the streets of London would have been as well founded as that to apprehend them where they were taken. Had they been malefactors, and citizens even of the United States, they could not have been arrested on a British ship, or on British soil, unless under the express provisions of a treaty, and according to the forms therein provided for the extradition of criminals." On the other hand, no amount of conviction, on the part of Captain Wilkes, of the liability of Messrs. Slidell and Mason to seizure, could justify the manner in which they were arrested. Surely a naval officer is not at liberty to determine what is or what is not contraband without appeal to any other tribunal. That would be an exceedingly dangerous precedent, and would open the way to the unsafety of all trading vessels belonging to neutrals in time of war. What protection would our flag afford to our legitimate passengers if we were to suffer every petty officer to make seizure of whomsoever and whatsoever he pleased to deem suspicious? The assertion that this irregular conduct was a convenience and kindness to the captain, crew, passengers, cargo, and owners of the vessel, is no justification whatever; and its being offered as such is an insult to international law. If there is a law, let it be respected. A man's private motive cannot be allowed to supersede the law of nations. It were a smaller absurdity to allow a common constable, on his own authority,