BLOCKADE. 



195 



States resolved to embrace the principles laid 

 down in the Treaty of Paris, with the excep- 

 tion of that relating to privateering, which 

 they had not been asked to adopt. When the 

 President communicated this decision to the 

 negotiator, he pointed out that it had been 

 adopted in the sanguine expectation that Eng- 

 land should adhere strictly to the article of the 

 treaty which laid down, that blockades to be 

 binding should be effective. The despatch of 

 the 15th of February, which was not called for 

 by any question or any emergency, sanctioned, 

 on the part of her Majesty's Government, the 

 blockade as it had been carried on at Wilming- 

 ton and Charleston, where it was notorious 

 that it had been less strict than on any other 

 portion of the seaboard from the north of Vir- 

 ginia to the extremity of Texas. Thus the at- 

 titude which England had adopted toward one 

 of the belligerents had been to induce them to 

 make a generous concession on an understand- 

 ing from which she seemed to have departed. 

 The effect of that despatch clearly was to re- 

 lease the Government of Washington from the 

 necessity of maintaining -at any port of their 

 coast a more stringent blockade than that 

 which existed at Wilmington and Charleston. 

 Earl Russell in reply to these views said : I 

 quite admit the right of the noble lord to call 

 into question the conduct of the Government 

 with respect to the blockade; nor, indeed, 

 should I complain if any noble lord were to 

 call into question the whole of their conduct 

 with respect to the unfortunate differences 

 which have taken place in America ; for I am 

 convinced not only that that policy is founded 

 on reason and can be justified by argument, 

 but also that it is generally approved by the 

 country. With respect to this particular 

 question of the blockade and I shall not 

 detain your lordships by entering into any 

 other it was, of course, a matter of serious 

 consideration with her Majesty's Government 

 from time to time in what manner they should 

 act. There are various questions connected 

 with a blockade which they had to consider. 

 The first was, whether there was sufficient au- 

 thority for instituting it. Lord Stowell says 

 that a blockade must be the act of a sovereign 

 authority. This was the act of the President 

 of the United States, who, on the 19th of April, 

 issued a proclamation declaring that the block- 

 ade was about to begin, and that act was fol- 

 lowed by armed ships of the United States 

 blockading the several ports and warning ves- 

 sels off the coast. Therefore there can be no 

 question as to the authority by which the 

 blockade exists. Then, with regard to the 

 means which the President, as the organ of the 

 Government of the United States, has employed, 

 of course at first they were very deficient, but 

 I think that these papers and everything we 

 have heard show that the Government of the 

 United States have been most desirous so to 

 augment their squadron and so to employ their 

 ships that there might be a sufficient force to 



establish an effective blockade. It was a mat- 

 ter of great importance to them a vital point 

 of their policy, and therefore one cannot doubt 

 that they would use every means in their 

 power. As early as the loth of July, when 

 complaints were made in some New York 

 newspapers that the blockading squadron was 

 not sufficient, I find that they had then thirty- 

 four men-of-war, of 56,000 tons, with 726 guns 

 and 10,113 men. That shows that they had 

 made great efforts to establish an effective 

 blockade. It might be said, again, at the com- 

 mencement that the blockade was too exten- 

 sive, and that it was impossible that so exten- 

 sive a blockade should really be efficient ; but 

 we must recollect that we ourselves in our 

 American war instituted a blockade of 2,000 

 miles of coast, and the difference between 2,- 

 000 miles and 3,000 miles is not so great as to 

 authorize us to make any objection to the 

 blockade on that account. But in a blockade 

 of 3,000 miles of coast, although it is such a 

 blockade as we ourselves should have establish- 

 ed, and such as the law of nations recognizes, 

 with several large ports and many small ones 

 to watch, there were sure to be many irregu- 

 larities in the conduct of it. Yet we find, 

 generally speaking, that there has been an in- 

 tention to station ships off the different ports, 

 and that ships have been stationed there. 

 Thus the blockade of Charleston was effective 

 on the llth of May by the ship Niagara; 

 Pensacola was blockaded on the 13th of May; 

 the blockade of the Mississippi was effective on 

 the 26th or 27th of May, and Savannah was 

 blockaded on the 28th of May, each port with 

 a sufficient number of ships for the purpose. 

 The noble lord says that the blockade of Charles- 

 ton was interrupted on some day in May; 

 but he himself read a letter in which it is stated 

 that the blockade was renewed by another 

 ship on the 5th of June. There was also an 

 account of another ship being added on some 

 day in July or August, and there is no reason 

 to suppose that there had been no ships of 

 war before that port, and the whole question 

 that arises is as to the interruption of the 

 blockade between the loth or 23d of May and 

 the 4th of June. If any ship had been taken 

 at that time into a prize court it might well 

 have been argued by the owners that there 

 was an interruption, and that no blockade ex- 

 isted ; but that does not affect the general ques- 

 tion of the blockade of the southern coast of 

 America. And let it be remembered above all, 

 that if there were an ineffectual blockade the 

 first place in which we should hear of it would 

 be in the American prize courts. When a mer- 

 chant vessel had been taken into one of those 

 courts it would be quite competent for the 

 owners to plead that there was no effective 

 blockade, and that, therefore, the vessel not 

 having broke it. could not be legally condemn- 

 ed. No one will say that there are not judges 

 in America quite competent to decide questions 

 of international law judges who have inherit- 



