TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE SECOND CIRCULAR ON FUGITIVE SLAVES.
IT may be fairly admitted that the second Admiralty Circular on the mode in which British Commanders of ships-of-war are to deal with fugitive slaves, does not contain any surrender of the acknowledged principles of international law in relation to the legal status of her Majesty's ships. It can no longer be said that even when a vessel-of-war is anchored in the waters of a Slave State, her Majesty's officers are expected by the Admiralty to recognise the legality of Slavery, and to turn the crew of a British ship into the instruments of a cruel and iniquitous violation of justice. Still less can it be said, as it might have been said while the first Circular was in force, that even on the high-seas a British ship is regarded as no integral part of her Majesty's dominions, within the boundaries of which Slavery could not exist, so that a slave, though his foot be planted on an English deck, would not thereby become free, as he would if he were standing on English soil. On the contrary, the second Circular virtually confesses and abjures the grave legal blunders of the first. It warns the officers of all ships, even when lying in the territorial waters of a Slave State, that they must refuse to take any evidence as to the legal status of a fugitive escaping to their vessel, and must not deliver him up to any of the officers of that State. And it directs the commanders of British ships who may have received any such fugitive on the high-seas, not to send him away till they can put him ashore in some State where the liberty he has thus recovered will be legally recognised and protected. So far, all is well. At least, it can no longer be said that her Majesty's Government, by their ignorance of elementary principles of jurisprudence, and their indifference to the still more elementary principles of justice, are lending themselves, against the doctrine of international law, to prop up the in- stitution of Slavery in those unscrupulous States where that great blot on mercy and on right is still tolerated.
But though the Government have returned from their erratic excursion outside the boundaries of law, and given in their adherence to the old and treasured principles so dear to the English people, it is quite impossible to say that they have shown the proper regret for their superfluity of naughtiness, and done all in their power to repair it. What they have now substituted for the flat contravention of international law and transgression of national custom embodied in their first Circular, is simply an order interpreting in the most parsimonious sense possible the rules which ought to favour fugitive slaves in their endeavour to escape from slavery. This is not, like the former Circular, a political crime, which, if any Government were to defend it, instead of humbly confessing it, and recanting it, as the present Government has done, would far more than justify its summary and ignominious expulsion from office. But though it is not a political crime, it is, especially after the warning the Government has had of the country's wishes on the point, a fault in policy of the most serious kind, and one of strangely pertinacious perversity. Let it be admitted, if it must be admitted for the sake of argument, that when English commanders enter the ports of a Slave State for a safe anchorage, or for coal, or for their own purposes of whatever kind, it would not do for them to repay the hospi- tality thus afforded them by encouraging a stampede on the part of all the discontented slaves of the neighbourhood to the deck of her Majesty's ship. Let it be admitted even,—what we exceedingly doubt,—that such a course, or anything approaching to it, would result in the refusal of hospitality to her Majesty's ships by the Slave States of the world ; still it does not in the least follow that it was either right or wise to formulate public instructions conceived in the grudging spirit of this second Circular, and to force them on every commander's notice. In the first place, is it not quite possible to rely on the British commander's own sense of duty in relation to his ship and his work, as sufficient security that he will not rashly do anything which would endanger the success of his cruise and the safety of his men ? English commanders have done many a gallant deed in putting down the Slave-trade, and have shown a zeal in the discharge of that duty which they would hardly, perhaps, have displayed in the same degree in the discharge of any other, but they have never been even charged with sacrificing the efficiency of their vessels to the philanthropic object of securing the personal freedom of a number of leniently treated serfs. It cannot possibly have been necessary to put them on their guard against needlessly setting
at defiance the law, however bad, of the countries whose ports they visit. In all probability, our commanders have been far more anxious to conciliate the authorities of Slave States than to offend them by their anti-slavery propagandism. It is far more pro- bable that the Naval Service would greatly exaggerate the in- convenience of harbouring fugitive slaves and the annoyance. of incurring disputes with the local authorities, than that they would make light of either inconvenience,—and no doubt it is so.. But if that be so, then the only effect of the new Circular will be to. prevent our commanders from using the power which they wouhl otherwise undoubtedly have to shelter fugitives in cases of excep- tional cruelty and terror; nay, to compel them, in deference to the Admiralty instructions, even in extreme cases, to order the un- happy outcasts back to their punishment. Now, even admitting, what we may perhaps fairly admit, that on the principles on which British commanders have hitherto ordinarily acted, it would not be possible to offer hospitable shelter to every fugitive slave who might choose to swim off to a British ship, is there the smallest reason why British officers should be deliberately de- prived of the right to use their own discretion, in exceptional cases, to protect under the British flag the victims of any gross act of torture or oppression As we said when we first corn- mente,d on these " second thoughts " of the British Foreign Office, there is no real difference in principle at all be- tween the duty of British Naval commanders towards political refugees and their duty towards escaped slaves. In case a rebellion were raging in any foreign territory within whose waters British ships were stationed, and the leaders of the beaten party claimed the hospitality of those British ships, undoubtedly the conduct of our commanders would be guided by the special circumstances. If there were a great crowd of such fugitives, it would be impossible and absurd to attempt to give shelter to all, and the most that could be acceded would be protection to a few notable persons deemed to be liable to special vengeance. Again, if the conduct of the beaten party had been notoriously wicked, treacherous, and cruel, it is probable that the English commanders would find in that fact sufficient motive for pleading the impossibility of finding room even for its chiefs on board their ships. But on all such points a discretion would undoubtedly be exercised. And under all ordinary circumstances, it cannot be at all doubted that the Naval officers of the Queen would think it their duty to grant an asylum to the few leaders whose liberty, if not their life, would be forfeited by their recapture. Now what conceivable reason can there be for leaving to Naval commanders such a discretion in the case of political refugees, and refusing it to them in the case of slaves ? We, at least, hold that the law which makes a man a slave is much more pernicious, unjust, and immoral, than any law which simply threatens ordinary rebels with the punishment of high treason. A slave receives so little from the country in which he is enslaved, that he owes rather indig- nation than gratitude to its code of laws. But a rebel may often have owed everything to the laws of the country against whose government he rebels, though he may have been driven by some grossly unconstitutional act into rebellion at last. Clearly, if our commanders ever owe an asylum to the refugees from mere poli- tical vengeance, it is wholly unreasonable to maintain that they can never owe an asylum to the refugees from the organised injustice of a wicked and immoral civil code. It is bad policy, a policy of evil augury, to restrict the discretion of our com- manders to protect the victims of a life-long wrong, when we do not restrict their discretion to protect the victims of a much slighter temporary wrong.. And the general con- siderations bearing on the case are precisely the same. It is quite true that our Commanders might forfeit the hospitality of a foreign Government. by protecting fugitive slaves, even when suffering under the most aggravated wrongs, but it is just as possible, and probably more likely, that they might forfeit that hospitality by protecting political refugees when suffering under far less serious wrongs. Civil war always excites violent passions, and a commander who took either a beaten insurgent leader or a beaten chief of the overturned Government, under his protection, might incur far more danger of being ordered out of the port than one who refused to give up a fugitive slave. Yet would the Foreign Office venture to instruct all our commanders to refuse protection in all cases to the political refugees of a beaten party ? The question answers itself.
Moreover, there is another and, if possible, still graver reason against the issue of these instructions. They avow a policy which, even if it be not a retrograde policy, as measured by the actual practice of our Naval commanders in recent years, at least commits the Government against taking a step in the right direction which might well become possible and would certainly be very welcome to the British nation. It is far from impossible that by combined action with other Naval Powers,—say the 'United States, France, and Germany,—we might put a pressure on the remaining States where Slavery is still legal, which would go far to make them break with the system. The status of Slavery in the civilised world is not what it was. The few ed Powers under whose protection that institution still lingers are not proud, but greatly ashamed of it. They would be far from desirous to draw attention to the blot on their escutcheon by publicly refusing to receive ships-of-war whose commanders did not renounce the right to shelter escaped slaves, especially if more than one great Power declared simul- taneously that nothing should induce them to let their com- manders renounce that right. And indeed, it is not impossible that such joint action, if it should ever be taken, might give the coup de grace to the already weakly health of this vile insti- tution in more than one region of the world. Now the step taken by the Government is a public declaration to the whole world that, so far from contemplating any step of this kind in advance, they are disposed to commit themselves for an indefi- nite period to a policy of deliberate forbearance with Slavery wherever it exists. No announcement could be in worse policy or worse taste, and as far as we can see, none could be more completely uncalled for at the present moment in its display of bad feeling and bad taste. We trust that Parliament will express its opinion of both Circulars very freely, and will induce the Government to cancel the last, as well as compel it formally to repent the gross sins and recant the gross heresies which made the first a flagrant scandal even to Tories, and to Liberals, even of the most Conservative type, a subject of pro- found disgust and indignation.
Previous page
