The Express.
London, England, 1862-03-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 8, 1862.

Savannah. In fact, Mr. Bunch himself acknowledged that
these vessels did Dot make their appearance in the open sea
except for a very short time. Then he took off horn the
122 these 1(11 coasters ; that left 19 departures, of which 15
were to American pone, chiefly to Cuba, all schooners ex-
cept one sloop, and only one schooner from Charleston to
Liverpool. Now they had heard a great deal of sham
blockades, but he appealed to the house whether
this was not a sham list. Now, looking at the
supplementary list, it gave fiftpone departures to
the end of October. Five of these were from
Port Largo. This small number proved the efficiency of
the blockade, inasmuch as they were all before May
17, and therefore before the decimation of the blockade,
thus showing that though there was • foreigu trade before
the blockade, there had been none since. This left 46, of
which at least 27 were quasi inland vessels, leaving only
19. Of these one was • privateer, three were small
coasters from Wilmington, 14 were small vessels
from American porta, and only one for Europe, • steamer,
the Bermuda, lie alluded to this, because they must not
suppose that this blockade was not effective from the
stones they bad heard of escapes. It bad been so extraordi-
nary theta vessel of any size should get out, that it was
talked of in all the newspapers of America, North and
South, sod we heard of it over and over again ; and if they
looked at the accounts of the escape of the Bermuda,
Consul Boileau: described it as getting out in the dark
on a stormy night, and he did not think that the fact of a
screw steamer getting out on a dark and stormy bight
was a circumstance which justified his honourable
friend in saying that the blockade was not effective.
Then again, there was the Nashville, of which they had
heard so much. If the house would refer to the led and
4th of the parliamentary papers they would find the depo-
sitions of one of the crew of the nun, giving an amusing
account of her adventures before She succeeded in getting
away. They would remember that the Nashville remained
for three or four weeks with Messrs. Mason and Slidell on
beard, anxious but unable to start—that a small vessel was
sent down every morning to see what was the state of the
blockade, and that at last them two gentlemen left the
Nashville, and thereby al:doing • much more unpleaaant
passage in the Trent. (Hem, hear.) He had mentioued
that one or two privateers bad left the Southern ports, and
the hon. gentleman had referred to the captures which they
bad made ; but let them compare the 'list of vowels which
bed broken the blockade with the list of privateers alone
which bad got out of the American porta during the last
war with this country. It ,was perfectly true that in
former times England had corasionally resorted to fic-
titious and paper blockades, at which the hot. member
said great feeling had been excited in Europe, though he
must my he was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman re-
commend to the House of Commas the remarks of a gentle-
man who was known to be so exceedingly hostile to Eng-
land as If. de Hautefenille. But, notwitlastaadiog the paper
blockades of former times, there weld be no doubt that the
blockade of the American pods was as effisient as was pos-
sible either on the part of this or any ether canary. The
people of this cottony knew that their oily chance of ter-
minating the war was by stopping the trade of America,
and the theta of England having towards the close had no
oecupatios in Europe, were able to take part in the blockade
service. Yet in lees than three years no fewer than 516
privateers got out of the American pert& (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. FEED LISBON submitted that if thousands had not
ht the selling ci so great a number of Tinsels was a
of the insufficiency of the blockade, they would sot
an reported them. At Sevaneab, on the 11th of October,
Acting Consul Fullerton said that the blockade bad latterly
been less strictly kept than at any period, and other consuls
at late dates had expressed themselves in similar terms.
He bawd to remind the house that the whole question
ought to turn en the law which regulated blockades. The
doctrine of the British government bad always been that a
blockade must be effective to be respected. In the case of
the blockade of 1807 which bed beta referred to by America
to prove that we had not always respected the law, that
blockade, it was well known, was an sot in retaliation for
the decree of Berlin instituting • blockede of all the British
With regard to the 'Jutted States law, it was clear
rornits. the doctrines laid down by American authorities that
the present blockade had been neither continuous nor effec-
tive, and was no legal blockade at all. What cause, there-
fore, was there for its being respected! He admitted we
ought to be chary in giving encouragement to insurrection
in any State, bat if strict neutrality was to guide the pro-
ceedings of this country, it was not coneistect that we should
'section • blockade which was ended the strict interpreta-
tion of iuternational law.
Mr. N. MILNE'S mid this subject involved nothing less
than the question of war between Gnat Britain mid
America. The question of blockade by cruisers had been
so materially affected by the application of steam to navi-
gation that it called for investigation. The common.seme
view of the case led to the conclusion that, under the cir-
cumstances in which the Southern States were placed, the
blockade must be considered effective.
Mr. W. LINDSAY, in reply to Mr. Forster, adduced
positive evidence of the Tunnies of the blockade by nume-
rous Teasels, some of them with no difficulty whatever.
From these instances, and from the distinct statements of
our naval officers on the spot, he argued that the proof of
the ineffectiveness of the blockade was complete, and he
could not understated, he said, how th
to government could
make it out that it was effective and ought be reelected.
Whatever might be the conduct of the inborn states, he
counselled neutrality, but • strict sad partial neutrality,
dealing as justly with the South as with the North.
The SOLICITOR-OENBRAL mid he wieldiest...penally
after the moat able and eloquent speech of his boo. friend
the member for Bradford—(Cheer)—travel at sub length
as he might otherwise have done into the cams of breach of
blockade. He 'should oily ails& to it to remind three
who had heard his bon. friend, and to inform those who bad
not, that his boo. friend bad taken up the
list and bad shown that there were not more
than from fourteen to sixteen cams of breach of
blockade, or of vessels running the blockade, and that these
were with one exception Confederate nerds. said not ships
which had COMO from this country. That mast satisfactory
and exhaustive statement had relieved him (Mr. R. Palmer)
from the necessity of going into these figures end facts, of
the accuracy of which he was satisfied, but what were the
reports which they had received from thee mauls end
officers who had received orders to ascertain the strictness
of the blocked,. For he should remind the house that there
Trues nuntienses on the part of this country, but that all
the time cakes competent to the tonics were cruising up
sod down the mast to see whether there was a suffi-
cient fuse at all points, and to send home information
to the government. He found from the reports of Captains
Ihuideeektaad Rose that front the 23rd July to the 4th
Sept., there was • amigo:Cent force for blockade purposes in
the Oulf of Mexico. With respect to these porta it was
admitted by the hon. member for Galway, that New Orleans
was strictly blockaded, and therefore it was not neceseary
for him to refer to that ass, but he could not help remind.
lag the boo. member and the house of the fact. Then with
respect to Gelvestoo, from the 2nd July to the '_9th Oct.,
the consul reported that so strict was the blockade that it
was inthomible for anything to get in or out beyond
a craft which drew only six feet ,of water. He
next went to Savanash. There he thought the
hon. member for Galway was going to make a case when he
referred to one particular case iu which the papers showed
there had been a remisanen in the blockade. But the hon.
member went on to Charlene° and Wilmington, when he
gave no facts—a deficiency which he (Mr. Palmer) would
endeavour to supply. The reports of the consul showed
that, although there had been a remissness in the blockade
shortly after its commencement. yet that it was resumed on
the 16th June, and continued to the SA September, sad so
closely that not more than one ship was able to run it.
Then as to Charleston, respecting which the strongest
case appeared to be made, our cooed, Mr. Bunch,
whom our government very properly supported against the
protean of the United State; reported thatat Charleston, at •
distance from the blockading force, vessels contrived to get
in, and he spoke of a laxity in the blockade ; but then with
respect to the port of Charleston, Commodore Lyons
reported on 31st July, 26th September, and 19th December,
that there was a strict blockade by a sufficient force,
although the commodore also reported that on the 19th
September certain vessels coetrived to get through. It
appeared that a want al vigilance, or sometbingelse, enabled
them, he could not my which, but there wu the
fact. He (Mr. Palmer) would add here that whether there
was or was not intentional laxity, the answer wee that
with one exception no vessel got through. The exception
was so singular that the facts stated by Mr. Bunch could
hardly be accepted without inquiry. That fact was, that
although no permission was given for vessels to go io and
out of Charleston, yet that armed treumporte of the Confe-
derate states were allowed to go in in sight of the block-
ading squadron. Except this fact, they bad the testimony
of their own cruisers that the blockade was preserved by a
sufficient force during the period he had mentioned. There
was, it was true, coullicting circumstances narrated in the
reports of Mr. Bauch. For instance, he stated that
the coasting trade was uninterrupted. But that was ex-
plained by the eaters of the coast, both at Savannah
and Charleekm. It appeared that large vessels could not
get through either at havanaah or Charleston, except
through the main channel, which was blockaded, but that
through the peculiarity of the coot, which wu pierced by
small Area= and rivers, and dotted with small bays and
lagoons, which stretched up to the capital, small Teasels
were able to maintain a communication. It would be, he
ventured to my, • novelty iu the law of blockade, if it was
deemed to be no blockade, unlade all the inlets of •
coast were closed up. (Hear, hear.) Them was abundance
of small inlets, such as Sea Island, north and south of
Chariestoo, by means of which small Teasels from 50 up to
300 toes were enabled to evade the blockade. Nobody
would expect that • blockade could be maintained along
seventy or eighty miles cif coast so situated. Be did sot
moan in what be mid to prejudice the case of any particular
ship, or the decides of • prim court, but this be weld say
that so one mould have bend the facts which had hem dated
by the hon. member for Bradford without pasesising OM
there was a multitude of particular questions in erl nose
varying according to circumstances. The gemlike gal
whether the blockade was according to the law of ..ides.
There was nothing better known than that it was the efight
of • belligerent Batton to establish • blockade, and If she
ships taken were brought before • prise con*
it was the bounden duty of a oeutral state patientiy to
abide by the decision of the prize court, and not to interfere
mien the as were taken to tie court of ultimate
If in May mart al ultimate ap it should a =the
law of nations bad Men aimripirded, u the
goverment of the sentmil constry would not be bound by
the mbar% bet it would be the duty of that country to
demand restituties. Hat that was a wens which wee ac-
maim to the ordinary law of nations, and the question
would not be Ile to the right of blockade, but whether justice