New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-05-05
BRITISH "NEUTRALIrYy AGAIN.

by England Of the belligerency of the Rebels
ind whether the haste with which the Queen
issued her neutrality proclamation concedlng
full beligerent rights to the half fledged Rebel
lion was not uniriendly in spirit as it proved
mischeyous in consequences, are soon to as
sumo a first rate Importance in the diplomatic
negotiations between this country and Great
Britain. So much is evident from the readi-
ness shown by our Government in its proc
lamatons touching the blockade and requiring
from foreign powers-England especially-the
withdrawal of obnoxious and injurious restric'
tons on our cruisers in foreign ports. The
dormant claim for damages suffered by Anglo
Rebel pirates and other pending questions relate
clearly and connectedly back to that first proc
lamaton of miscalled neutrality which lifted the
Rebellion into a position Of international re-
spectablity, and for four years Sustained 1t by
the continuing acts and sympathies OF British
'Goyernment and British subjects alike.
a food of light has just been thrown on the
points at issue. An eminent writer on interna'
tional law, Mr.. GEORGE BEMIs of Boston, pub.
shed day or two since an elaborate and con-
'clusive reply to the recent speech of Earl Russell
land supplementary letter Of the well known
A" lIistorcus' OF The London Times. We have no
space for the whole of this admirable essay, but
we must attempt to indicate the scope and com
pleteness of it by presenting one or two OF it
leading arguments.
Earl Russel's speech of March 90, made in
answer to a speech of Mr.. Bright in the House
lof Commons, undertook to base a defense OF
the neutrality proclamation on the distinct
ground that it was made necessary by the
Presidents proclamation of blockade. His
orieus" also declared: at was a matter not Of
choice, but Of necessity, that the Queen o.
England should issue proclamation Of neutral
ty to her subjects, and that that proclamation
should be issued without one single instant''
delay"
But this was not the ground upon which that
proclamation was based or justified at the time
l of It's ISSUE and Earl Russell ayals himself
ldisingenuously Of what is clearly an after
thought; thereby betraying lis conviction that
the reasons which at the time dictated the issu.
ance Of the proclamation are lot such as he
can venture to urge at the present day. For II
appears concusiyely that the original pre-
,lcxt for belligcrent recognition was not the
blockade, but the assumption that there was
q state Of fragrant war between two Govern
'ments. Dates here become essential,-
Because TisfoIicus' cites. with loud flourish Of
tumptts. dispatch Of Lord l. ons 70 lar Russell
dated Apii -. lsol. aud received IN London, May
tcnh Isbl-a dispatch conn unIcatng the fTesiicnts
proclamation ct blockade Of April 49, and Jefferson
Dhyiss proclamation Of threatening 60 Issue lettcls 81
marfuc and rcpr'sil. dotted April l7-ana asks, what
was The immediate duty 81 Government charged with
tho Interest Of Brist subjects %. over the world on
the receipt Of such dispatch ~
But the purpose to issue that proclamation
had been announced by ministers in Parliament
Oh the s,1M OF May, four days before the dis
patch referred TO had reached England. That
purpose certainly could not have been formed
unon the knowledge OF the blockade, be-
cause the blockade was not then known
in England. Furthermore, the proclamation
itself is conclusive as to the causes OF It's
having been issued. IL says Whereas
hos.iliiics have unhappily commenced between
the Government of the United States and GER
tain States styling themselves the Confederate
States of America not, "whereas a certain
Of blockade has been issued;" and
there il no reference III il to the fact Of block
adc, except to forbid the breaking Of any block
i.de established by eidr paHy-as if the North
ern ports on the 9th of May, l'6l, were IN
danger of being blockaded by the Rebels!
Again Earl Russell repeatedly, soon after the
recognition OF the Rebels as a belligercnt power,
assigned to different persons the reasons which
ectuat,d tie British Government at the time.
Writing TO Lord Lyons an account Of his inter-
view with Mr.. Adams, he relates:
81 said thai we had taken step except that OF do
clang ounc,yes neuilal and allow ng to the southern
States beilgeIcnt character; that ne size dHdpcpuia
zion oil f ScctdHg SGffs Te 90 cOHStdQdbeGf He e0hi9
net aeny them that charGcv.'
Upon which Mr.. Bemis with great force and
puugcncy comments as follows:
NOV beg To- ASK lift is within tie bounds ofpossi
biity TINT II the proclamation Of neutrality had been
based npcn the Presidents proclamation o, blockade
IS Elrl Russell says IL was, quoting the Lord Chance
Tor, 10 aIusioD should nave been IDhue 10 " D! .ne
Foreign Secretary in this interview Here was MI.
Adtu.s seeking an immediate interview and demand
ing with suppressed accessibility II not with
uncontrolled excltability. what Wa the meaning OF
tLis niece Of unexpected and INV ecome conduct of
Fu,llnd toward his Government And here, ON The
Other hand was the Foreign Secretary, fresh from the
Cabinet council aud from contact with tho Lord Chan
ceOr ard bis legal associates undertaking Ia explain
the reasons Of 10 grave and uhirendy step Oh the
art II his Government i'm the lcnst offensive and yet
most simple Is IL In human nature, hc could
i 70. No al IA - a ftU1f of xauf
pfrsid,ni's proclamation; u III an unavoidable nccos
sity forced US by hin, that be would not have sure
ly done sol"
Sui more conclusively Mr.. Bemis quotes
from coicmporaneous dispatch Of Earl Rus
=.