Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-04-02
EARL RUssELLs VIEW OF THE BLOCKADE

The Manchester Guardian Of the I4th OF March
the text Of the CORES pondence between Earl RUSSELL
and Mr. MASON, Confederate Commissioner, extending
the period between April 1862 and the end Of last
month,
Mr. Masons letters urge the Government OF Great BIZ
tain to recognise the Confederate States and to break the
blockade He goes into long arguments on international
law but most Of Earl Russels replies are merely cour-
teous acknowledgements Of having received his communi
catous. On the I'd of August, however, Earl Russell
writes
In the face of the Aucusng events of the war; the
alterations Of victory and defeat the capture If New
Orleans the advance Of the Federas 10 Cornh to Mem
phs and the banks Of the Mississippi far Yckburg
contased the other hand with the failure Of the attack
on Charleston and the retreat from before Richmond
placed too between aegao contradictory the part
Of the conending Powers her Msj.stys Government
sti determined To wait"
In the beginning Of this year Mr. MASON addressed 10
the Foreign Office letter dated January 1863 in which
he merely objects TO the views Of the English Government
on the subject Of bocksdes In reply to this Earl Rus
SELL writes:
tvs Government would much regret you should feel that
any want Of respect intended by the circumstance
acknowledgment Of your letter having hitherto been
addressed TO You.
with regard TO the question contained in it, have to
say that her Majestys Government to qua
lily the language employed in my despatch to Lord yons
to be sufficiently that the declaration of Pa
rs could not be intended to that port must be
bockaded n really to prevent ia oil wnds and In.
dependeny OF whether the muuication which might
be carried on 10 dark night, by Of small low
steamers coastng craft creeping along the shore in
short that that communication with port
under blockade should be utterly aud absolutely impossb
under any circumstances.
In further illustration of this remark may cay there
no doubt that blockade would be ia legal existence
although sudden storm or change of wind occasional y
blew III the squadron. This is change to which in the
nature Of things every blockade IL liable Such an acct.
dsntdoes not suspend much less break blockade where
as on the contrary the driving off blockadinp prce by
superior force does break blockade which must be re-
newed de moro. 10 the usual FORM to be binding upon
neutrals.
The declaration of Paris was, in truth directed
aga nst what we're termed paper blockades that
bockades not sustained by any force or m tanned
by VIGOROUSLY made naval force such IA the occa.
sioDal appearance OF Of war the ofnp or the like
adequacy Of the force to MAINTAIN the bockade must
indeed awayso certain extent be of fact and eyi
deuce but does not appear that any of the numerous
cases brought before the prize courts America the
adequacy OF the force has been urged by who would
have been most interested in urging against the legality
i OF the sezme.
The interpretation therefore, placed by her Moiesty
Government on the declaration Of Paris that block
ade IN order TO be respected by neuira pract
csy effective. At the time wrote my drspatch q, Lord
Lyons her Majeys Government we're Of opinion that the
block sde Of the Southern potts could otherwise
so regarded and certainly the manner in which it has
since been enforced gives TO neutral GOVERNMENTS no
cue tor asserting that the blockade has not been
maintained 1t is proper to add the same view Of
the meaning and effect ~ the article Of the Of
Paris on the subject of blochades which above
taken by the representative If the United States at
the Court of ST. James Mr. Daas) during the commun-
cations which passed between the two Governments some
years before the present war with view to the accession
| Of the United States 10 that declaration