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

garded a matter of order, but whether he was right as a
matter of discretion was another subject,
_ _

Sir R. PEEL said that the Government had tt ken mea-
sures to prevent; disturbancea, and those ptrsons who
had been guilty of riot at the Long?crd election
would be prosecuted if they were detected. (Hear, hear.)

CLOTHING OF VOLUNTE' RS.

In reply to Lord A. VANE TEMPEST,

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that it was intenled to issue
clothing to the volunteers on the terms contracted for by

Government.

---
BLOCKADE OF THE PORTS OF THE CONFEDE-

RATE STATES OF AMERICA.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. GREGORY called the attention of the house to the
blockade of the ports of the Confederate States of America,
and to move an address for any correspondence on that
subject subsequent to the papers presented to this house.
The honourable member, in the course of some
preliminary observations, stated that his sympathies
were not with the States which were struggling
for dominion, but with those who were striving for
independence. (Hear, hear.) Having adverted to the im-
portance of the subject not only to this country but to the
world at large, he cited the authority of Chancellor
Kent, the celeberated American jurist, and other
writers on international law, and inferred from their
dicta that the present blockade was illegal,
and it could be shown that it was inefficient. (Hear,
hear.) Ho referred also to the statement of Lord
Lyons as to the inefficiency of the blockade, and said that the
withdrawal of the blockade of the port of Charleston
was a breach of all those principles of international law,
which Lord John Russell said was necessary to con-
stitute an effective blockade, and ridiculed the explanations
given by Mr. Seward in reference to the abandonment of
that blockade. He quoted also the opinion of Con-
sul Burnet as to the inefficiency of the blockade,
and his statement that if large vessels approached
certain ports, and of his subsequent assertion that vessels
of a certain size entered and departed from the port of
Charleston in the month of September at pleasure. The
blockade had been described by M. Hautefeuille as wholly
inefficient, and he accused England of conniving at its in-
efficiency and illegality with a view to availing herself
some day when she was belligerent of the precedent of such
a paper blockade. The Southern States had assented to the
declaration of the Congress at Paris with regard to the strict-

ness of a blockade in order to make it legal. This being so,
the acceptance of the Federal blockade was, in fact, a vio-

lation of neutrality, and this country was doing an injustice
to the industrious class, which was deprived of the raw
material on which their prosperity and even existence
depend. He did not intend to attack the Government,
which had had a very difficult part to play, and they hal
played it to the satisfaction of the country. The hon
gentleman, having traced the principle of international law
relating to blockades from the time of the declaration by
Russia in 1780, contended that the idea on the subject on
the continent was more stringent than that which obtained
in England, and he quoted the American authorities, Kent
and Wheaton, who laid down the rule of perfect efficiency
of blockades, which meant that no vessels could run into
the blockaded ports. The opinion of the majority of the
neutral Powers was decidedly that the blockade was illegal.
He then proceeded to state that up to the Ist of November
upwards of 400 vessels had run the blockade, and since
then it had continued as constantly. Ho read a number of
documents to show its general entire inefficiency, while in-
termissions of that which was affected to be kept up were
frequent. In strong terms he condemned the act of sinking

a stone fleet in the harbour of Charleston. He urged that

it was necessary to act towards the United States Govern-
ment with strict justice and no more, for we owed them
scant courtesy, and to keep them to the strict letter of in-
ternational law, lie had seen in the Southern States the
deepest attachment to England; and if the South should
co,it to secure her independence, events might occur which
would cause England to repent that she had not a friend on
the American continent.
Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion, which was for
correspondence subsequent to the papers presented to the
house, and urged that, on the principle laid down by Earl
Russell that every people had a right to choose their own
form of Government, the Southern States were entitled to

recognition.
Mr. W, E. FORSTER sail that the blockade involved
a question of law and one of fact. He should deal with the
latter ; and he fully agreed that if the blockade was proved
to be ineffectual and illegal, it was a breach of neutrality
to recognise it. He accepted the definition of a blockake as
laid down by Lord Russell in the correspondence, which im-
plied due notification, no undue preference, and due effec-
tiveness. The first two conditions had been observed by the
Federal States, and as to the last, the hon. gentleman read
the statement of the vessels said to have run the blockade,
and showed that many of them left the Southern ports in
the time allowed them before the blockade came in force ;
he reduced the alleged uumber of 320 down to 122, of which
106 were coasters and scarcely appeared in the open sea at
all; so that the real evasions were 16 in number, of which
15 were Americans, and the one remaining was bound for
Liverpool. If the interpretation contended for by Mr.
Gregory, namely, that there must in no case be an evasion,
there must be an end of all blockades. The last official ac-
counts showed that the blockade was much more effectual
than he could have hoped it could have been. Another
proof of the effectiveness of the blockade was, with all the
temptations of large profits if it could be broken, yet no
cargoes of cotton or other articles, the profit of which would
be 1,500 per cent., passed from the Southern States. Not-
withstanding the distress in the manufacturing districts,
the cry for breaking the blockade did not come from thence ;
and it was only used for their own purposes by those who
desired to aid the Confederate States. He expressed his
belief that the feeling of this country was in favour of a
strict neutrality in the affairs of America.
Sir J. FERGUSSON contended, and quoted documents
to prove, that the blockade was ineffectual.

Mr. M. MILIsTES argued on the other side of the ques-
tion

Mr. LINDSAY observed that reference had been made
to the Bermuda leaving the blockade on a dark and stormy
night. Now, he had received a letter from a gentleman who
was a passenger in that vessel, who stated that it was per •
fectly well known that the vessel was laden and ready for
sea—that the weather was fine and clear—and that she
went out without meeting any obstruction whatever.
(Hear, hear.) This morning he had seen three gentle-
men who arrived in this country on Tuesday last in the

Carron. That vessel found no blockade whatever, and

had been in and out of Charleston at least twenty times
since the paper blockade had been established. He could
furnishth the noble lord at the head of the Government with
esof6
since theoOvessels whpircehelhareadatpieansseedf outth the blockade.
Con-
federatehthleeekede.
enames
portse
MercantilethelV blockadede than e k t y
95 Report r
ports stated that
since
etw
between no less
vessels
had
beentet
Southern States and Cuba. And that paper added of
thath
since the statement was in type four vesselshadarrived at
Matanzas from the Southern ports. (Hear, hear.) By
the declaration at Paris it was laid down that a blockade
must be effective. Now, it might be said that the American
Government were no parties to that declaration, and that it
was in fact rejected by them. That was true, but the Ame-
rican Government had acknowledged the principle laid down
in 1856, and it was admitted in our despatches that they
would not respect blockades unless they are effective and
sufficient to prevent access, not only to the ports, but to the
coast of the enemy. The American Government had not
only acknowledged that principle, but acted upon it ; and if
we should unfortunately be thrown into war with any
country no person would be found more ready to maintain
that principle than the American Government. (Hear.)
It was evident from the reports made by our own officers
that the blockade was not an effective one. Commander
Lyons, in his despatch of Nov. 21, alludes to the disgrace-
ful expedient resorted to of sinking vessels filled with stones.
He said it was a disgraceful proceeding, because it was
closing up harbours given by God to man for the use of
mankind. If any British ship had been captured and con-
demned during the time of the pretended blockade when
there was in reality no blockade, he hoped the owners would
insist on the Government demanding compensation for the
ship so condemned. We had a right to interfere with the
States if they interfered with us. By their blockade they
were injuring our commerce, and we had a right to remon-
strate. He should like to hear from the Government their
views, or some indication of what their views were, as to
the recognition of the independence of the Southern States.
Were Government of opinion that a people numbering some
six or eight millions—a people who had proclaimed their
independence—raised an army—and established a Govern-
ment—were not entitled to be considered as fit to govern
themselves. He wished to hear the principle by which the
Government would be guided in recognising the indepen-
dence of the Southern States. If the people of America in
1774 had a right to rebel from being over taxed, the people
of the Southern States of the present day had a greater
right to rebel. Two-thirds of the exports of the United
States consisted of the produce of the Southern States.
These exports were paid for by imports, and the principal
part of those imports came from England. These imports
were heavily taxed for the benefit of the Northern States
and Central Virginia. Tle abominated slavery as much as
any man could, but it was a mistake to suppose that the
North was opposed to slavery. Two of their most distin-
enished generals who had uttered opinions against slavery
I had been recalled. He believed that nine out of ten people
in the Northern States did not desire to see slavery
abolished. The North were boasting what they would do
with. England when they had settled their differences with
the P..outh, If we showed any sympathy at all, it ought to
be With the
South what theeppressed. Let not Government do to the
would have.e4w.ould not have done to the North. He
shed be contsinueaavinshtic
e done to both. Why should blood-
tion ? (Hear, hear )enTit could have no end but separa-
South, the
.North hough double the strength of the
instru-
ments of destructionnotfrom
means of obtaining instru-
South were not aggressiverabEngllsh or other ports. The
; and it was a rera'arkliatbwlere fighting for indepen-
dencebeen defeated till some gunboataef fact that they had never
at their fortifications. Ile hoped the.
river threw shells
insist that ir mere welt, 4.o'bve aTlG:fernment would
effective, according to the treaty of Paris.
.t(ilt- should be
The SOLI CI I' alt- GE NE RA.L thought it Waar; nhoe slightat)
inconvenience that a motion which tendered no definite pro-