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

"TIE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY! EVENING, 1 MAROII 8,1 ISM

position for their acceptance should lead to the introduction
of acrimonious and irritating topics calculated to wound the
susceptibilities of either of the parties in the unhappy con-
test now carried on in America. 11e did not blame the hon.
gentleman who had spoken for giving way to his sympathy
for the South, but he could not help noticing that while he
and others called on the Government to recognise the inde-
pendence of the South, they in the same breath declared
themselves advocates for the strictest neutrality. To pre.
cipitate any decision on that point would be wholly incon-
sistent with the neutrality to which we had pledged our-
selves. He could not say the observations of the hon.
gentleman who had just set down were conceived in a spirit
of neutrality. (Hear.) But as we had preferred a strict
neutrality from the beginning, it was our bounden duty to
observe it to the end. We should deal with the North as
we would with the South, but we must remember that they
(the North) were placed in a position of peculiar difficulty
and trial, and we should show towards them in word and
act a generous and disinterested forbearance. We should
exercise a sympathising judgment towards them, doing that
which was right and just to ourselves, and trusting that
peace might soon be restored to them and to the world.
Now came the question on what principles were we to
judge the question which had been raised as to the efficiency
of the blockade. We must judge that according to our own
principle, and according to the principles of international
law, which had been recognised, not only by ourselves, but
by the United States, prior to the time of the recent conflict
between the States of America. These States had pro-
duced great jurists, who had borne testimony to the prin-
ciples of law laid down by the English authorities, amongst
others Chancellor Kent, whose decisions had given great
precision to the law of blockade, and whose testimony he (the
Solicitor-General) was willing to set against all aspersions
cast upon the law of this country on the present subject. The
hon. and learned gentleman the member for Galway had
brought forward, though only for the sake of saying that he
did not accept it, the authority of M. De Toqueville, who in
his work and with the dates before his eyes, did not hesitate
to say that the Milan and Berlin decrees were retaliations
for the conduct of England towards France, whereas those
decrees had been made in 1806, and the first of our Orders in
Council on the subject was not issued till the year 1807.
With regard to the Northern and Southern States, Eng-
land was doing nothing inconsistent with her previous
practice; but that writer might very well think, though his
own Government did not sympathise with him in the matter,
that it would be convenient in certain conditions that Eng-
land should have made herself a party to his new-fangled
notions of a blockade which would render it impossible for
any blockade to be maintained, and would so destroy the su-
periority of our maritime arms. Was it necessary to con-
stitute an effective blockade that no ship should run that
blockade ? If so, there never had been, and never could be,
a real blockade. According to the decision of 1780, a
blockade by a force such as would make it evidently dan-
gerous to enter the port, was considered a legal blockade.
The hon. gentleman said that what was laid down by Lord
Russell in the stipulations of the treaty of Paris had been
unaccepted by the American authorities. But the fact was,
that Mr. Dallas had said that those principles, as he under-
stood, were consistent with what had been long laid down,
and, in point of fact, contained nothing new, though he
(Mr. Dallas) also said that as to the treaty itself, it was only
binding upon those Powers who were parties to it. In order
to establish a blockade two things were necessary; first,
there must be a bona
„fide blockade, and next a sufficient
notification of the existence of the blockade. No matter what
writers on this subject might lay down, it was impossible to
say precisely what force was necessary to establish a blockade.
For the change which recent improvements had led to in the
mode of warfare, much must be left to the judgment of the
naval officer in command. In a judgment delivered in 1809
by Sir W. Grant upon appeal it was held that the blockade
of a port was sufficient, although maintained only by one
vessel, which had also to assist in the blockade of another
port a few miles distant. A blockade might even be
intermitted and resumed, and as soon as you have know-
ledge of it, it is the same as if it had not been intermitted.
Some gentlemen seemed to look at this question as if the
blockade of the whole coast was one, and that in the
absence of a sufficient force at any point to maintain, the
blockade at that spot, the whole blockade was gone ; but it
had been laid down that one port could bo effectually block-
aded though others on the same coast were not, and even
that one entrance to a port might be effectively blockaded
though vessels could still enter by another channel which
was not properly guarded. In 1804 and and 1806 we had
allowed the Custom .house vessels to pass our blockades,
though other vessels were still excluded. It was decided
that those vessels which had been permitted to pass could
not be treated as prizes, but that this did not justify
other persons in breaking the blockade, as if it had
ceased to be enforced. The hon. and learned gentleman
also referred, in support of his view, to the blockade of
Havre, 1798-99. This was all that he thought necessary
to state to the court (much laughter)—all that he thought
was necessary to state to the house. He did not state
whether those decisions were right or wrong; but this was
the law as it had been laid down. From the first, the
President of the United States had declared that those
ports should be, and were blockaded according-to the
law of the United States, and to the law of nations,
and that a competent force should be provided to maintain
and enforce the blockade. There was no indication of any
intention to establish a paper blockade, or to do anything
contrary to the rights of nations. Lord J. Russell had
raised this question in a conversation with Mr. Adams in
May, 1861, when Mr. Adams declared that his Govern-
ment had no intention to institute a paper blockade, against
which the United States had always protested. He (the
Solicitor-General) offered no opinion as to whether the
blockade was sufficiently maintained or not. Professions
had been uniformly made to that effect, and tho due notices
had been given. There had been no false assumption in
principle. If there had been, under pretence of a blockade,
'and under colour of accidental remissness, a real absence
of proper force to maintain the blockade, that would, no
doubt, be a case in which we might interfere. The Govern-
ment could only form its opinion upon the reports of its
own officers. Those reports were that, under some circum-
stances, and at some places, there was a great remissness in
enforcing the blockade ; while at other times and other
places there was great strictness in enforcing the blockade.
The question, therefore, became one of place, and time, and
circumstances with reference to each vessel said to have run
the blockade. The member for Bradford had shown that
there were only sixteen cases in which vessels could be said
to have run the blockade; while in every case but one the
vessel so escaping was owned either by citizens of the Con-
federate or Uaited States. From the reports of our Con •
suls and our cruising officers it appeared that the blockade
was efficiently maintained in September and December last,
in all the ports of the Gulf of Mexico. Galveston was ad-
mitted to have been strictly blockaded from Juno to Octo-
ber, and there was no reason to suppose that the blockade
had since been less effective. Then as to Savannah, the
report of the Consul showed that, although there was a
short intermission after the institution of the blockade, yet
that it was immedis.tely resumed, and continued so strict
that up to the time of -his writing only one ship had run
the blockade. With respect to Charleston, it was true that
Mr. Brunel, writing from a distance, and relying upon the
reports of others, did speak of the laxity of the blockade of
this port. But it would be found that he referred to laxity
so far as coasting vessels went ; and Commander Lyons
and other naval officers reported that so far as sea-going
vessels went, the blockade was effective, while all ac-
counts agreed in saying that no intentional relaxation
of the blockade had taken place on the part of
the United States squadron. We had, therefore, satis-
factory evidence of an efficient blockade of Charleston from
June to October last. That some ships had entered Charles-
ton and Savannah was accounted for by the nature of the
coast. Intersected with bays and lagunes, and with an
inland navigation connected with them and ramifying
throughout the interior, the sea entrances of Charleston
and Savannah were by no means the only channels by which
small vessels could reach those places, although large ves-
sels could only enter through the channels opening directly
out to sea. But it could never be maintained that there
could be no efficient blockade of Savannah and Charleston
unless the enemy could intercept the inland navigation for
some GO or 70 miles. The blockade of the main channels
opening out to sea, if effective, would not be vitiated by the
fact that coasting vessels could enter through these lagunes
and the inland navigation. It then came to this that the
question was one of times and circumstances with reference
to each vessel. The validity of each case of seizure was to
be decided by the prize courts of the belligerent power ; and
the neutral power was bound to acquiesce in that decision,
unless it was obviously unjust. Then, no doubt, we had a
right to demand redress for the particular act. But there
was here no question *of breaking the blockade. lle could
not make out what the member for Galway wanted. Ho
referred, indeed, to an armed neutrality. But were we to
dictate to the United States what they were to do ; and that,
if our terms were not accepted, we would send our ships
with armed convoys to break the blockade. What would
that be ? He said it would be war. An armed neutrality
was a species of war not more honourable because it was
not avowed. But such an armed neutrality as this was ono
never heard of in the history of the world—not oven in the
days of the Empress Catherine, or of the mad Paul. For
a country professing to be at peace to set at nought the re-
ceived usages of nations, to say, " Our ships shall not be
subjected to prize courts ; we will enforce our trade at the
point of the sword"—that was a thing which any nation
doing would not only do at her own peril, but would incur
the consequences of war. It might, indeed, happen
that the country whose rights were thus invaded might
at the time be unable to resent such an aggre-
sion by force of arms. But did they think the
injury could be forgotten, or that peaceful rela-
tions could ever be re •established between the two coun-
tries ? And was it desirable that such should be our con-
duct towards our brothers in blood, language, and religion,
the children of our forefathers, those to whom we were
united by all the ties which could bind men to men ? Even
in the holiest of causes, even in such a cause of war as that
which lately seemed imminent, we should enter into it with
feelings that he could not describe ; and if, on that occa
sion, we had been forced into a contest—although we
should have had no alternative, and were not the aggressors
—it would have been a great addition to the bitter feelings
which sub a contest would have occasioned, that it might
have been imputed to us, that, having made such sacrifices
for the sake of liberty, wo wore obliged to be bound in, ac-