Government; and the result was that a million of money had been wasted-more than wasted-for the general paralysis throughout all the ramifications of our commerce, caused by the warlike preparations of Government, had already been productive of the most pernicious effects. The affair of the Trent was nothing but an unhappy accident, and no one knew it better than Lord Palmerston himself. Lord Palmerston, after turning into ridicule Mr. Bright's illustration of the messenger who made "ferocious gesticulations," said the point of his argument was, that the Government of the United States were bound, by obligations of international law, to give up those persons who were taken from on board the Trent, and that they were not influenced by any fear of mob dictation, which could justify us in making demonstrations in order to overawe the mob. If so, why did not the American Government immediately release the prisoners, and why did it one department at least-participate in the ovations to Captain Wilkes? Lord Palmerston reminded Mr. Bright, that his own countrymen were susceptible of insult as well as Americans; and if he had pocketed the insult, a feeling of ineradicable irritation would have been produced in this country, which would have been far more dangerous to the future prospects of peace, than any feelings engendered by the recent conduct of Government. Mutual respect, between nations as well as individuals, was the best security for mutual good-will. Shortly afterwards, The Earl of Carnarvon asked whether any communication had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of foreign States, relative to the Southern blockade. Papers had been laid on the table containing much useful informa tion on the subject, but they did not mention whether any such communication had taken place. Lord Russell answered, that no formal communications with any foreign Governments had taken place. The subject of this blockade was, early in the month of March, formally brought before both Houses of Parliament, the first debate originating in the House of Commons, in a motion by Mr. Gregory, and the second being introduced in the House of Lords, by Lord Campbell. Before entering upon his subject, Mr. Gregory observed, that in the preceding Session, he had been prevailed upon to abstain from bringing the question of recognizing the Southern States into discussion, though he was then (as he was still) of opinion that the contest in America was a hopeless one; that secession was a right, separation a fact, and reunion an impossibility. He should then, he said, have counselled the recognition of the Southern States as independent de jure and de facto, and he was sorry the discussion did not take place, since he believed the attitude of the House of Commons, on that occasion, was not interpreted by the United States, as prompted by a spirit of conciliation, but as the result of fear. He would not now press the question of recognition, but should confine himself strictly to that of the blockade-a question of the most vital importance, not to England only, but to the whole world. He proceeded to argue, that by the acknowledgment of the validity of the blockade, our neutrality appeared to be one sided; we seemed to be conniving unfairly at the act of one of the belligerents, and doing an injustice to the fair trader. He was bound to say, that he was more than satisfied with the past conduct of the Government, under circumstances of the greatest difficulty; his only fear was that they might go too far, and carry forbearance to a point that would prejudice our own interests, and derogate from our character in the opinion of other nations. He then tried the question by the rules of International Law, and by the practice of prize courts, insisting that, according to the legal definition of "blockade," to the dicta of jurists of authority (including the American judge, Kent), and to judicial decisions in reported cases, the blockade of the Southern ports by the United States was illegal; that it was ineffective, and therefore illegal, was proved by the number of vessels which had run the blockade. He cited as evidence to this fact, communications from our naval commanders and consuls, and the acknowledgment of American newspapers, testifying to the absence, inefficiency, or intermissions of the blockade, which, he maintained, continued up to the present time. If the blockade had been effectual, would the Government of the United States, he asked, have resorted to the barbarous and disgraceful policy of destroying the Southern harbours? In conclusion, he moved an Address for certain papers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bentinck, who, deprecating the introduction of the element of slavery into the discussion, which would, he said, be hypocritical and unjust, considered that Mr. Gregory had made it clear that the blockade was null and void, and he urged a recognition of the independence of the Southern States, in conformity with the doctrine enunciated by Lord Russell, in the case of Italy, that a people were entitled to choose their own form of Government. Mr. W. Forster said the question of the blockade was one of law and of fact. If it could be proved that it was not effective, he admitted that it would be a breach of neutrality to recognize it. He, however, disputed the fact of its inefficiency, and pointed out material errors in the lists of vessels said to have run the blockade, and that the manner of the escape of some vessels which did elude the blockade proved its strictness. Judging from the evidence relied upon by those who denied the legality of the blockade, he concluded that it had been wonderfully effective from the beginning. The rupture of the blockade was asked on account of the distress in our manufacturing districts; the demand, however, had not come from the representatives of Lancashire and Manchester, but from the members for Galway and West Norfolk. What the country desired was, that the policy of the Government should continue to be one of strict neutrality. He believed their forbearance and generosity hitherto had been the means of preserving us from a most deplorable war. Sir J. Fergusson, after remarking that Mr. Forster's facts were not borne out by the official papers, said the whole question turned upon the law which regulated blockade, and, according to the doctrine of the Americans themselves, the facts showed that the blockade had not been effec tive, and it could not be respected without a violation of neutrality, and assisting the stronger belligerent. The Solicitor-General agreed with Mr. Lindsay, that it was the bounden duty of this country to persevere in a strict and impartial neutrality, dealing equal justice to the North and South. But we should not forget the difficulties of the United States Government, and should discard everything that could disturb our sympathizing judgment. The principles on which Great Britain should judge this question, were those of International Law, as laid down by great jurists. After examining the definitions of "blockade" given by Mr. Gregory, he enumerated the conditions of a legal blockade, and the qualifications to which they were subject. The notion that, (if the blockade did not extend to the entire coast, but was inter Mr. M. Milnes said this subject involved nothing less than the question of war between Great Britain and America. The question of blockade by cruisers had been so materially affected by the application of steam to navigation, that it called for investiga-mitted in some parts, it became tion. The common-sense view of the case led to the conclusion that, under the circumstances in which the Southern States were placed, the blockade must be considered effective. Mr. W. Lindsay, in reply to Mr. Forster, adduced positive evidence of the running of the blockade by numerous vessels, some of them with no difficulty whatever. From these instances, and from the distinct statements of our naval officers on the spot, he argued that the proof of the ineffectiveness of the blockade was complete, and he could not understand, he said, how the Government could make it out that it was effective, and ought to be respected. Whatever might be the conduct of the Northern States, he counselled neutrality, but a strict and impartial neutrality, dealing as justly with the South as with the North. altogether ineffective and at an end, was, he said, incorrect; if the blockade was maintained in other parts of the coast, it was effective there. He cited cases to show the extreme danger of acting upon the notion that any intermission of a blockade had the effect of raising it. The duty of the British Government, on the commencement of hostilities between the Northern and Southern States of America, was to take care that our vessels and property should not be exposed to jeopardy by a paper blockade, or by any action not recognized by the principles of International Law; but all such pretensions had been disavowed by the United States Government, which had professed its intention to act according to the law of nations, and had always recognized the principles of that law as applicable to the blockade. He argued from the facts stated by Mr. Forster, and from the reports of the British Consuls, that a bona fide blockade had been maintained by that Government. At the same time, he did not mean to say a word to prejudice the case of any particular vessel, with reference to any particu. lar place not actually blockaded; such cases were proper for reclamation, or for the consideration of a Prize Court. Mr. Gregory had not said what he thought the Government ought to do. If to dictate to the United States, and, should they resist, to establish an armed neutrality, that, he said, would be war, and he earnestly deprecated so great a calamity. Lord R. Cecil disputed in some points the doctrine of the Solicitor-General, that the continuity of a blockade might be interrupted without affecting its legality. He contended that, according to International Law, the intermission of a blockade was a fatal incident, and that the recognition by us of an illegal blockade would create an illfeeling against us in the Southern States. After a few words from Admiral Walcot, the motion of Mr. Gregory was negatived. Lord Campbell's motion in the House of Lords was, in form, for the production of correspondence relative to the blockade. His object was, he said, to give Earl Russell an opportunity of explaining the policy pursued by the Government with respect to the blockade, which he, Lord Campbell, contended was an ineffective one; and he argued on the impropriety of a great commercial nation, like England, giving VOL. CIV. Lord Russell expressed his conviction that the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government had obtained the approval of the country, and said that from the very first the blockade of the Southern ports had occupied the attention of Ministers, who had had two questions to considerfirst, whether the proclamation of a blockade had been made by sufficient authority; and, secondly, whether the means employed had been sufficient to blockade so large an extent of coast. In regard to the first point, the proclamation had been issued, as laid down by Lord Stowell, by the Sovereign authority, in the person of the President of the United States; and, in respect to the extent of coast, we ourselves had formerly proclaimed a blockade of a coast not much inferior in extent. He then proceeded to reply to the proofs adduced by Lord Campbell of the inefficiency of the blockade, recounted the efforts by which the United States had sought to render it effective, and considered that the want of cotton in our own markets, and the deficiency of our manufactured goods in the Confederate States, were the best test that the blockade was not an empty proclamation. As to the number and size. of the vessels which had eluded the blockading squadrons, much exaggeration prevailed, many of the vessels which had run the blockade being only coasters of small draught running from creek to creek. On the point of what constituted effective blockade he had consulted the Crown lawyers, and had then written a despatch [E] on the subject to Lord Lyons. He could not give the papers moved for, for the simple reason that none such existed. He also stated that no formal communication had been made by the French to the English Government on the inefficiency of the blockade. In conclusion, he observed that the policy pursued by our Government had been dictated, not by expediency, but by justice-a fact which would be acknowledged by both sides at some future time. It would be impossible to renew the old feeling between the North and South, and as that was the case he hoped the North would consent to a peaceful separation of two States, both rich and extensive enough to be mighty Powers. If that were accomplished he should feel with gladness that we had done nothing by our attitude to aggravate the contest, but had done our best to act impartially between the two parties. The discussion then terminated. A very important and interesting debate upon the law of nations in its bearing upon the maritime rights of neutral Powers in time of war, took place in the House of Commons upon the 11th of March, upon a motion of Mr. Horsfall, one of the members for Liverpool, who proposed the following Resolution: "That the present state of international maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and neutrals, is ill-defined and unsatisfactory, and calls for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government." He should not enter, he said, into the past history of our international law; his object was to call attention to the practical bearing of the law as it existed. Assuming the declaration agreed to at the Conferences at Paris, that the flag should cover the cargo, to be the acknowledged maritime law, its effect in time of war would be that every ship of a belligerent must be laid by in docks, that neutral vessels would get enhanced freights, and that British seamen would be draughted into neutral vessels. The effect in time of peace would be, that at Canton or Calcutta, on a mere rumour of war, second-class neutral vessels would get better freights than first-class British vessels. He read the evidence of witnesses in corroboration of this opinion, and in favour of placing ships in the same category as cargoes, as the only remedy for this state of things. After discussing at some length the views and acts of the United States Government on the subject, and on the proposal that all private property at should be exempt from capture, he asked the House to affirm the Resolution in the interests of the commerce of the country, and in the names of humanity and justice. The Attorney-General insisted that the law, so far from being ill-defined and unsatisfactory, was quite clear and well understood, observing that Mr. Horsfall had, with one exception, correctly stated and clearly defined it. The change of the law proposed by Mr. Horsfall would go very much beyond any relaxation of the Maritime Code suggested by writers on international law, and was one which must be made not by any single country, but by the general assent of the maritime |