16 SEPTEMBER 1854, Page 10

PRITATEERING REFORM.

Tam question of Privateering is placed in a new light by a conver- sation which took place between Lord Clarendon and Mr. Buchanan the American Minister on the 16th of last March, and which is re- ported to the Government of the United States by Mr. Buchanan. The question arose out of the declarations of the British Govern- ment on the subject ; and Mr. Buchanan construed Lord Claren- don's expressions to imply the desire for a treaty between the two Governments for the total suppression of privateering. Mr. Bu- chanan replied by referring to the peculiar situation of the Ameri- can Government, whose commerce is as extensive as any in the world, but whose navy is so small as to render anything like an equality with the navy of Great Britain impossible. In the event of a war between the two countries, therefore,—a contin- gency which must be regarded as possible, although the allusion to it regards no want of friendliness,—Great Britain would be able to send out her cruisers to capture American merchantmen in all directions, while the American navy would be quite unequal to the defence of her commerce ; and the only resource would be, to convert the merchant-vessels cast out of service by the war into privateers for defence and retaliation. This is an argument derived from necessity, and it is unanswerable unless a means could be shown of rescuing the United States from that necessity. We confess, we do not at present see any means by which the armed and the mercantile marines of that country could be placed in a proportion similar to that of Great Britain. We suppose, therefore, that the continuance of privateering must be granted to the United States.

This concession does not comprise the issue of letters of marque to the private ships of a neutral power,—a practice which the American Government has consistently condemned, and which will probably be consigned to the museum of antiquated abuses.

Even privateering is condemned on many grounds, and it is not defended on abstract principles by Mr. Buchanan. But he has in- troduced a new argument with a new suggestion, both of them ingenious.

• There is," says Mr. Buchanan, "nothing really different in principle or morality between the act of a regular cruiser and that of a privateer in robbing a merchant-vessel upon the ocean, and confiscating the property of individuals dividuals on board for the benefit of the captor." "The genuine dictate of Christianity and civilization would be, to abolish war against private property upon the ocean altogether, and only employ the navies of the world in pubhc warfare against the enemy, as their armies are now employed; and to this principle, thus extended, it was highly probable the Government of the United States would not object."

Much may be said for this view, although we do not think that it is perfectly tenable. It is true that armies are not exactly em- ployed in the capture of individual property as ships are; but that arises from the fact that armies chiefly operate in bodies, and that while ships operate to a great extent individually there are no cities afloat. We blockade, capture, and hold for ransom, entire towns or principalities ; and we should do the same at sea if the private warehouses, as they may be called, were not scattered over the ocean. Admit Mr. Buchanan's principle, either ashore or afloat, and the force of compulsion through the commercial or financial screw—by which, probably, Russia will be first brought tie reason, and possibly the -United States may purchase Cuba— would be thrown out of use. We have not yet arrived at that day, or rather returned to it, when war is to be settled by a chivalrous conflict between a picked body of military represent- atives.

Nor is there the assumed resemblance between the privateer and a regular cruiser. With the privateer, trading motives are pare- Inount—are under no control ; and very scanty responsibility exists in the commander, who for the purpose of gam is able to push the licence of warfare so far, that in practice it has been found impes. able to draw the line between the privateer and the pirate, even as a technical question, while morally the distinction has often been entirely lost. Since, therefore, eve cannot grant the condition sug- gested by Mr. Buchanan, and cannot demand the concession from America hinted by Lord Clarendon,—since privateering, it seems, must continue, it would be well to mitigate and improve the prac- tice. The principle for doing so is not remote or obscure. It is natural that the Americans should look to privateering as a re- source for marine warfare, since they are so familiar with the co- operation of the private citizen in land warfare. A corps of pri. vateers may be regarded as a sea militia; but there is a grand dis- tinction between the militia and the privateers : a militia corps, employed entirely for national purposes, secures its booty inci- dentally, and being under command of an officer appointed by Government—the Colonel--a military responsibility for the gene- ral operation of the corps is secured. Thus, to speak generally, the immoral tendencies of private warfare are counteracted. The same rule which prevents the militia from degenerating into brigands would prevent the privateer from degenerating into the pirate. It would be, to place in command over every vessel an officer appointed by Government.