The Nevada Democrat., 1862-05-03
The BIooIxade An the British Parliament.

| The Blockade In the British Parliament.
The subject Of the blockade of the South.
ern ports was debated 10 the British House
of Commons early 10 March. Mr.. Gregory,
member for Galway. aud the fast freud Of
JEFF Davis Government, brought forward
his motion calling for papers and cores
pondence touching the blockade. Some
eight or ten months ago, Gregory argued
in favor of the immediate recognition OF the
reyolted States, and declared that they had
demonstrated their ability 10 maintain their
independence; but bis latter effort was 10
more subdued tone. He argued that the
blockade was a mere sham, and then upset
bis own arguments by endeavOring to show
how ruinous il was to British interests
bow the operatives were suffering for the
want of cottOn-how family ties were rup-
tured, etc. The advocates Of the rebels bad
the discussion pretty much to themselves,
none of the Ministers speaking on the ques-
tion, and Mr.. Gregory's motion was mega
tived by large majority. The best reply
to Gregory was made by Mr.. Forster, a
representative of the manufacturing inter-
ests, and we'll entitled to speak for Cotton
Opois. The London correspondent of the
Bulletin, in his letter of March 9th, gives
the substance of Mr.. Forster's remarks:
/ H. o1ot khna oVnaa
of the blockade, and it had been said before
Parliament met that honorable members could
establish the fact Of 600 vessels having run the
| blockade. But what were the facts! He found,
upon analyzing the different returns,-those
| furnished by Messrs. Yancey and Mann, and
! the returns of Mr.. MasOn-that the entire num-
her was only 800. OF these, ll9 had escaped
before the declaration of the blockade-56 had
| left before the Is days Of grace had expired. Of
the rest, LOG were coasters. engaged, as Mason
/ had termed it, in quasi-inland voyage, and
which would have no claim to be considered as
coming within the meaning Of vessels running
the blockade. Out of the 322 escapes there were
only 10 real ones, and Is Of these were to Amer
ican ports, and only to Liverpool. To show
the efficiency Of the blockade at the port OF
! Charleston, it was only necessary to state that
the Nashville remained in the harbor for nearly
weeks, with Messrs. Mason & Slidell on board
| irving to get out, but was unable to do so. Du-
ring the last war with America our blockade of
their ports was as effective as any country in
the world could make a blockade, and neverthe-
| less no less than sic privatears, during period
of years, managed to leave the American
ports. to say nothing of merchant vessels. he
! ferring to the latest accounts. the blockade
must be held to be more effective than any one
could have expected. Undoubtedly, for few
! davs, the blockade of Savannah was ineffective,
but that would only give the Government a
right to demand redress II any English vessel
had been captured during those days. On the
10Th of December, Commander Lyons wrote
that the blockading force at Charleston was suf-
fcient, although he doubted whether the Off
GERS in command were as active as they might
be. But how could they disregard the potent
proof of the efficacy of the blockade afforded by
the opportunities open to traders of making
money. On January the llth, the profit to be
realized on the export of bale Of cotton from
New Orleans was 100 per cent, and notwith-
standing that enormous profit cotton had not
been exported. Upon salt the profit was 500,
and eontraband of war still more. Gould they
have more assured proof Of the stringency of
the blockade? He could not deny that the dis
tress was very great in the manufacturing dis
tricts and he feared it would be yet much great
er, still the cry for relief did not come from
Manchester or Liverpool. He knew something
of the feelings Of the working people of the
north Of England, and he was quite sure it was
against our Government transgressing interna-
tional law. The people very much doubted
whether the interference of England would not
be adverse to their interests by stopping sup
ply of cotton from India without securing that
from the Southern States.