This proclamtion then recites at length a portion of the statute 59th of George III, wherein the offender is to be punished with fine and imprisonment or either at the discretion of court, and continues:
And we do hereby further warn all our loving subjects and persons entitled to our protection that if any of them shall presume in contempt of this our royal proclamation and of our high displeausure to do any act in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign in the said contest, or in violation or in contravention of the law of nations in that behalf-as for example and more especially [here specifying offenses in the aforesaid statute], or by breaking or endeavoring to break any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on behalf of either of the contending parties; or by carrying officers, soldiers, dispathces, arms, military stores or materials or any article or articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war according to the law or modern usage of nations, for the use or service of either of the said contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the said statute or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or denounced. And we do hereby eclare that all our subjects and persons entitled to our protection who may miscounduct themselves in the premises will do so at their peril and of their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any prtection from us against any liabilities or penal cosequences but will on the contrary incur our high displeasure by such misconduct.
Given at our court at the White Lodge, Richmond Park, &c.
The London Times commenting on this proclamation remarks:
Heretofore the proclamation has only reminded the subjects of the Queen of the penalties which the law of this country denounces against an infraction of neutrality, and points out the penalties with which such offenses may be visited by the law of the land or by the law of nations. But in the last paragraph the proclamation seems to go beyond this and to make an announcement of the policy which will be adopted in cases which are provided for enither by the law of the land nor by the law of nations, but which arise out of the peculiar conditions of the present unhappy conflict. It will be observed that in this place the word 'such" is omitted. The liabilities and penal consequences are not confined to those under the act or under the law of nations but are left wide and indefinite, as if on purpose to embrace the very case we are supposing.
The captain of the British subject, does not hesitate to bear the dispatches of the rebels in the face of all this warning. His act is the more flagrant from his carrying the mails of his Government on a regular ocean mail line to and from England. How can the English Government screen him from public prosecution? Not only the captain but "all hands" have violated the spirit if not the letter of the law and both letter and spirit of the proclamation. And why should not the United States by the law of nations ask of Great Britain this example to be made of offended justice and right?
PHILADEPHIA, December 22, 1861.
Steamship Edinburh left Liverpool Wednesday; Queenstown afternoon of Thursday, 12th instant; passed Cape Race Saturday. General Scott previous to embarking in Arago had long interview with Prince Napoleon. Reported that the general carries to America expression of French Emperor's desire to bring about peaceable solution of question between English and American Governments. The Australasian was to sail night of 12th with troops and munitions for Saint Lawrence. Niagara sails Saturday; 300 artillerists to Halifax. No abatement in England of warlike preparations.
W. W. FULTON.