The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-06-01
BALTIMORE.
SATURDAY, JUNE /, 1851.

There is a manifest uneasiuess at the North with
regard to the course which England will pursue
with reference to American affairs. Lord JOHN
RUssELL's declaration that the blockade OF the
Southern ports, to be lawful must be made Ell
fective, coupled with his recognition Of the South
ern Confederacy as belligerent, is denounced in
the bitterest terms. Some Of the Republican jour
nails have even gone far to assert it to be the
duty of the Federal Government to declare war
against England in consequence. Some, however,
are disposed TO wait further developments; whilst
others are srenuousIy endeavoring TO weaken the
evident effect of the blow by asserting that, al
though the avowed policy of the English Govern
ment is favorable to the South the sympathies OF
the English people are clearly with the North.
There never was an instance of more open ana
palpable sef-deception. If popular opinion IN
England were adverse to the policy of the Gov
eminent in this matter, it would Immediately ind
expression in Parliament. The facts, never
theless 20 TO show that Conservatives and
Liberals alike agree upon the course which the
government has publicly announced that it in
tended to pursue, and that the views of Lord
GRANVILLE and the Earl of DERBY, as also those
of the principal Law Lords are in singular har-
mony, not only in regard to the principles which
govern a blockade, but also with reference 10
privateers Lord GRANVILLE defined "a lawful
'tblockade' TO be one that is maintained with
force so large as 'to render all ingress or egress
eff not actually impossible, yet extremely
s'diffcult;" and stated that while certain articles
were clearly contraband of war, there were certain
other articles, whose liability to confiscaon must
be determined by Il prize Court. These Positions
Lord CAMPBELL held to be correct law. The Earl
of DERBY declared that the United States had not
a sufficient force to maintain an effectual blockade
of the whole Southern Coast and therefore it waS
not desirable that they should proclaim an univer-
sal blockade, whilst maintaining partial one
He moreover contended that the Northern States
could not treat privaeers pirates, by the law OF
nations, and Significantly intima,ed that II they
Inflicted tSuch penalty on British subjects, the
act "would not be viewed with indifference by
England Lord BRoUGHAM said that privateer-
ing, according to international law, was not
piracy; but that it was a piratical act for
British subjects to join in such an eApedl-
ton. Lords CAMPBELL, CHELMSFORD, and
KNGsDowN, emphatically denied the doctrine
that subject of another Power, holding
letters of marque, ",oaS not gritty Of P'raey."
From the above brief sketch of the debate which
took place recently in the House of Lords, two
things are apparent. First, that England will not
respect any blockade of the Southern coast which
is not thoroughly effective one and that, in the
opinion of her leading statesmen, it is impossible
for the Federal Government with its present naval
force, to maintain an effective blockade. The
second point is equally clear. The English Gov
eminent will not consent TO recognize privateering
as piracy, nor will it permit any British subject,
who sails under letter of marque from the Con
federate States, to be executed pirate. Nor
does the Royal misunderstanding all British
subjects to do no acts Gin derogaton Of their duty
Gas subjects of neutral sovereign, in violation
f'of the law of nations''-afford any ''aid or COM
"fort' whatever to the North, if the following
analysis of its points may be regarded as correct.
They are from the AbeHd Zeitung, a German
paper, bitterly hostile to the South: