194 



BLOCKADE. 



however, are of opinion that, assuming that the block- 

 ade is duly notified, and also that a number of ships 

 are stationed and remain at the entrance of a port, suf- 

 ficient really to prevent access to it, or to create an 

 evident danger of entering or leaving it, and that these 

 ships do not voluntarily permit ingress or egress the 

 fact, that various ships may have successfully escaped 

 through it, as in the particular instances here referred 

 to, will not, of itself, prevent the blockade from being 

 an effective one by international tew. 



The adequacy of a force to maintain a blockade being 

 always and necessarily a matter of fact and evidence, 

 and one as to which different opinions may be enter- 

 tained, a neutral state ought to exercise the greatest 

 caution with reference to the disregard of a de facto 

 and notified blockade, and ought not to disregard it, 

 except when it entertains a conviction, which is shared 

 by neutrals generally having an interest in the matter, 

 that the power of blockade is abused by a state either 

 unable to institute or maintain it, or unwilling, from 

 some motive or other, to do so. EUSSELL. 



The subject was brought before the House 

 of Commons on the 7th of March by Mr. Greg- 

 ory, who moved for copies of any correspond- 

 ence subsequent to papers then before the 

 House. In support of his motion, he contend- 

 ed that the efficiency of the blockade of the 

 Southern ports was a question of great import- 

 ance to England and to Europe, and he asserted 

 that her recognition of it, in its present state, 

 had exposed her to severe criticism on the part 

 of foreign jurists. Amongst others, M. de Haute- 

 ville, one of the most eminent of modern French 

 writers, had charged England with conniving 

 at an illegal blockade, and that she did so not 

 from any friendly feeling toward the United 

 States, but in order that she might make it the 

 basis for enforcing her own arrogant preten- 

 sions, when, having become a belligerent our- 

 selves, it might be to her interest to set aside 

 the principles of international law. Her jus- 

 tice and impartiality, in fact, were involved in 

 this matter. If the blockade is ineifectual, she 

 was conniving at the use of a weapon of war- 

 fare by one belligerent which it is not in the 

 power of the other to employ, and thus acting 

 unjustly to fair traders, by making commerce a 

 matter of smuggling, gambling, and speculation. 

 The opinions of the neutral powers were al- 

 most unanimously against the legality of the 

 blockade. Hitherto it had not fulfilled any of 

 the conditions which could constitute it legal 

 and efficient. On the contrary, steamers of 

 light draught have continually run it, and were 

 daily plying between the various ports of the 

 Southern States. In conclusion, he urged that 

 if England continued to connive at an illegal 

 and inefficient blockade in order to conciliate 

 the United States, the Declaration of Paris 

 would be, so far as it regarded the Confederate 

 States, a mockery, as regarded international law, 

 a delusion, and, with respect to the trade and 

 commerce of the world, a snare. 



Mr. "W. E. Foster denied that the blockade 

 was ineffective, and stated that the lists of up- 

 ward of three hundred vessels, which had 

 been handed in by Mr. Mason as a list of the 

 vessels which had broken the blockade, had, 

 on examination, dwindled down to nineteen, 



and most of these had escaped on dark and 

 stormy nights, thus proving the stringency, 

 rather than inefficiency of the blockade. He 

 also reminded the House that during the war 

 between Great Britain and her revolted colo- 

 nies in America, no less than five hundred pri- 

 vateers succeeded in getting oat of American 

 ports. 



The Solicitor-General quoted numerous pre- 

 cedents to show that the present blockade was 

 as efficient as other blockades had been in 

 former years, and that it would be a violation 

 both of international law and of the principles 

 of neutrality to break it. In 1798 public noti- 

 fication was issued by the British Government 

 that there would be a rigorous blockade of 

 Havre. A force was sent out to establish the 

 blockade, but the commander was so remiss in 

 the execution of his duty that he habitually 

 allowed ships to run in, so that practically it 

 might be said there was no blockade at all. 

 Yet, it was nevertheless held that so long as a 

 force remained and the notification was not 

 ignored, the blockade was considered to be in 

 existence, and any neutral vessel breaking it 

 was liable to capture. That was, he contend- 

 ed, a case strictly analagous to that of the 

 blockade of the Southern ports, with this ex- 

 ception, that the duties of the blockade in force 

 in the latter instance had been more vigorously 

 executed. He complimented the speech of Mr. 

 Foster, asserting that the facts the member had 

 laid before the House were wholly unanswer- 

 able. The returns received by the Government 

 fully established the accuracy of his statistics. 



This motion was negatived without a divi- 

 sion. 



Subsequently, on the 10th of March, Lord 

 Stratheden renewed the motion. At the same 

 time he stated that his object was not to de- 

 clare that the blockade ought to be raised, or 

 any means to be adopted with that view, but 

 to show that toward one of the belligerents in 

 America the Southern, or insurrectionary 

 power England had assumed an attitude 

 which suspended, if it did not violate neutrali- 

 ty, and that to restore that neutrality some 

 further action was necessary. Her attitude 

 toward that power arose out of a despatch 

 addressed By Earl Russell at the head of the 

 Foreign Office to Lord Lyons on the 15th of 

 February. About July or August last England 

 appealed to the Government at Eichmond to 

 induce them to accede to the principles of public 

 law which were laid down by the great powers 

 at Paris in the year 1856. The negotiation 

 was conducted by a gentleman of South Caro- 

 lina, who had the confidence of the British 

 consul at Charleston and of Lord Lyons ; and 

 although the Richmond Government might 

 have declined to receive the proposition on 

 the ground that they could not hear a negoti- 

 ator from a power which refused to recognize 

 the place they claimed in the society of nations, 

 they did not act on that feeling, but on the 

 13th of August the Congress of the Southern 



