Delaware State journal and statesman., 1861-11-12

"lt is probably unprecedented, within
the confines of international law, that nation
under the strongest terms of amity with another
nation, (and still remaining SOL had without
cause SO far as that nation was concerned,
CLOSED ber ports and harbors against the lcgiti.
innate ingress and egress of the ships of such
friendly nation.
'Contending, therefore, as do, that the block
'ade of certain ports Of the United States, Of
America as against the ships of this country is
'an infringement on international law, nugatory,
and unavailable, respectfully claim the pro-
'Ieetion of her Majesty's Government for the
mercantile expedition in question, and Mt the
same time your lordshps permission to defend
itself in case of need"
To these epistles, Earl Russell directs the
Secretary of Foreign affairs to orespond Mt length
After quoting the points advanced in Mr.. Hay
mans letters, and remarking that the Importance
of the subject had rendered it necessary for Lord
Russell to consult the law officers of the crown
previous to rendering decision in the matter
the reply concludes thus -
understanding, from the tenor ofyour letters.
$50 fN''N ~ "hASu 9puA NttdNlS are 10 nfO-
'ceed are ports which are or may be blockaded
by the naval forces of the United States, Lord
Russell directs me to warn you of the serious
consequences which the measures contemplated.
'as stated in your letters will entail on all con-
'celned therein, and to inform you that her Ma.
Jesty's Government will not afford the slightest
protection or countenance 10 the projected en-
';erprise
'Ihe United States and the so called Confrder-
'ate States are engaged in civil war, aud her
'Majestys Government have recognized that state
of things, and have taken up position of neu-
'irality between the contendiDg parties Under
these circumstances, if any British chip, being
neutral, knowingly attempts to break an eaec-
tive blockade, she is liable to capture and con-
"emnation. If such ship defend herself by
'ioree agalns n national vessel enforcing such
BLOCKADE, such defence is q breach of the law 0
nations, aud will expose the ship and cargo to
condemnation as prize, and those persons who
commit the act to personal responsibility and
'severe treatment, according to the law of war,
'the act OF such persons being considered by the
Flaw and usage of nations as one Of uniustihable
hostility.
Il am to state that the general rule US to trad
ing by neutrals in time Of war with belligercnts
is that they may freely trade, but that they are
bound TO respect every effective blockade, and
that if they carry cOntraband Of war to either
'beliigersnls, they do 50 at the risk Of capture
and condemnation by the other, if discovered.
Upon the receipt Of this most conclusive reply
OF Lord Russell, Mr.. llayman at once informed
the Foreign Secretary, that, rcgretling the con-
cusion at which the government had arrived in
regard to the blockade, he would as matter of
duty "Pause in the carrying out OF his inteu-
tious.n
Thus we have at length, direct and official ill.,
formation from the British government that
England means to respect the blockade Of the
rebel ports, aud will neither aid, counienance or
protect any Of her subjects in any effort to violate
it.
In connection with this subject we append tho
following article, the tone of which runs in the
same direction, from the London Post, semi
official organ =
IA notion appears to have got abroad Of late |
that the cotton famine with which We are threat
'ened may at any moment lie relieved by Il very
simple process, and moreover that we have the |
remedy entirely in our own hands. We are
sorry to say that this ls complete deusion on
the part OF those who entertain it. The cotton !
trade of America may, it is true, be re.opened
tat any moment but that is an event which de-
'pends solely upon the will and power Of the
Northern States. No foreign power has the
smallest right 10 interfere in the matter II il
perfectly true that the Queer of England or the
Emperor of the French may, whenever thew
think fit, recognize the independence of the Com
'icderate States Thnt is an exercise Of supreme
authority which cannot ba called in question.
The practical question is, what bearing, If any.
such recognition is likely To have On the cotton
question 1t is assumed in certain quarters
that the recognition of the Confederate States
aud the raising Of the blockade mean one and
'the same thing; or in other words, that the one
must Immediately and necessarily follow the
'other. This Is au error. Instead Of releasing
the cotton which is now stored in the Southern
ports we have no the slightest doubt that the eff
feet Of the recognition OF the Confederate States
by England and France would ne to render the
'hlockade more stringent than ever. 1t requires
very little reflection to perceive hat this would
'be the natural and necessary result Those
who advocate the adoption of this step seem to
think that it would give us some kind of right to
interfere with the blockade This is a serious
mistake. The right Of ofbockaing an enemy's
ports is one which, from tho earliest timo,, has
never bOen disputed Questions have arisen
and will arise as to what constitutes an effective
blockade but the most strenuous advocates of
neutral commerce have never ventured to con
test the right itself The Northern States are
undoubtedly superior at sea to their opponents
'Iheir superiority upon that element, in part at
'leiEst' eounteroa lances their disasters on land
'ant this is an additional reason why the blockade
of abe Southern ports should be maintained.
we confess, therefore, that we can see no present
prospect of cotton from that quarter.D
Bi D. Colonel Mulligan refuses his paroe nj