with pungent severity the naval operations of the United States during 1861, the Times said:

"The blockade has been so notoriously a failure that nothing but the extraordinary scrupulousness of the European powers has allowed it to continue. Ships have passed in and out at all times just as they pleased, and, so far as the harbors are concerned, there has never been any difficulty in getting into them or in getting out of them. The Federal government has itself emphatically admitted the failure of their naval blockade by an act of barbarity which is unparalleled in the history of national wars. They have actually endeavored to undo what Columbus had doneto shut up from all mankind forever the ports which the great discoverer opened to the human race, and to destroy by artificial impediments the gates by which men of all nations enter and pass out of some millions of square miles of fertile and productive lands. This is a crime against all human kind. If it does not call down universal opposition, it is only because the enterprise is believed to be as impossible as its design is execrable."

The blockade announced by the proclamation of April 19th was extended by that of May 27th to Virginia and North Carolina, and embraced the whole Atlantic coast from the capes of Virginia to the mouth of the Rio Grande.

The terms of the proclamations were that "a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels," and it further provided that "if with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave any of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her, and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.

The blockade thus proclaimed, was referred to by Mr. Welles as "necessary to interdict commerce at those ports where duties could not be collected"-but that "in performing this domestic municipal duty, the property and interests of foreigners" would be guarded by a fifteen days' notice of blockade and a warning before seizure. A blockade carries with it, under the law of nations, the right of visitation and search, which a "domestic municipal duty" did not embrace. If the proclamation of Blockade was merely domestic municipal duty, it could not be so exercised as to hinder and embarrass

any other valuable portable articles not required

by the commander of the blockading fleet there, and return them safely to me.

In case of disaster to preclude going on, you can call at Fortress Monroe, Hampton Roads, to repair damages, reporting to the flag-officer there.

Wishing you a safe and speedy passage, I am, yours respectfully,

By an examination of the list of vessels comprising the fleet it will be seen that most of them bail from the New England States. In the bottom of each vessel a hole is bored, into which is fitted a piece of lead pipe, five inches in

diameter, with a valve attached, so that the water can be let in with a velocity calculated to sink any of the ships in the space of fifteen or twenty minutes. In case the valves should not work as well as expected each vessel is furnished with large augers, so that there will be no difficulty whatever on the score of sinking.

The crews-which consist of six men to each vessel, will be returned to this city by the menof-war who assist in the work of sinking. It is intended that the stone vessels shall be anchored broadside in the channel and then sunk, and that the crews shall not leave them until the work has been securely performed."

the commerce of foreign nations. Thus, both Mr. Seward and Mr. Welles blundered in the early days of the war. A blockade may begin by public announcement or proclamation, or by merely stationing a naval force before the port intended to be blockaded. But proclamation without the naval force would not be tolerated for blockade by mere notification would have been a paper blockade which all nations would have resisted, and a blockade by actual present force could only apply to the particular harbor where the force was stationed. The proclamations, while announcing a blockade by notification, also included a de facto blockade. By the latter a breach of blockade could only be considered as attempted after notification on the register of the ship and a subsequent attempt to enter. At the date of the two proclamations of intended blockade, there was no naval force at the disposal of Mr. Welles to make a de facto blockade, hence it was not until late in the summer of 1861 that the entire coast witnessed the presence of an actual blockading force. Prof. Soley points out the defects of the proclamations:

"In the statement about warning, therefore, the President's proclamation said either to much or too little. If it was intended, as the language might seem to imply, that during the continuance of the blockade-which as it turned out, was the same thing as during the continuance of the war-all neutral vessels might approach the coast and receive individual warning, and that only upon such warning would they be liable to capture, it conceded far more than usage required. If it meant simply that the warning would be given at each point for such time after the force was posted as would enable neutrals generally to become aware of the fact, it conveyed its meaning imperfectly."

And the author might have added that if the proclamation meant both, and was so drawn as to cover any contingency that might arise, it was most likely that Mr. Seward intended this last interpretation. That the proclamation fixed no time for warning to cease, that it permitted such errors as that of Pendegrast, the comprehensiveness of which included ports of North Carolina, where no force was stationed, and that at Charleston, where vessels where warned off the whole coast, though no ship of war was at Savannah, were errors which subsequently involved the United States in difficulties which resulted in the payment of "a round sum to their owners in damages for the loss of a market, which was caused by the official warning."

The British consul at Mobile was on May 8th advised by Lord Lyons, that:

"The best advice you can give British ships is to get off as fast as possible, without serious inconvenience.

1 The following is a copy of the notice of the blockade of Southern ports endorsed on the registers of all vessels, foreign and domestic, bound into the Chesapeake :

"Prussian bark Edward from Bremen bound to Baltimore, boarded by United States steam

After the effective blockade

ship Quaker City, of United States blockading squadron, and warned not to enter any port of Virginia, nor any other port of the United States to the south of it.

"S. W. MATHER, Acting Master U. S. Navy. "Off Cape Henry, 18th May, 1861.'

has commenced they will be allowed fifteen days to take their departure, but they will not be allowed to carry out any cargo, or part of a cargo, taken on board after the effective blockade was actually begun. Indeed, according to the rules of blockade, I believe they will be liable to confiscation for attempting to go out with a cargo shipped after the commencement of a blockade. But the effective blockade does not begin until the blockading squadron actually appears off the port. The President's proclamation is only the declaration of an intention to blockade."

In the latter part of May, before the arrival off Charleston, S. C., of any blockading vessels, the British schooner Eliza and Catharine entered that port, discharged her cargo and loaded immediately, and was proceeding to sea when she was brought to by a shot from the Minnesota, and her captain compelled to go on board the man-of-war. After examination the schooner was ordered back to Charleston to discharge her cargo and leave in ballast. Robert Bunch, her Britannic Majesty's consul at Charleston, immediately visited the Minnesota, and convinced her commanding officer that, considering the real facts of the blockade at Charleston, it would be best for him to permit the English schooner to depart with her cargo. This permit was immediately given, but the Norwegian bark, Admiral Zendenskjord, which entered Charleston under the very same circumstances as the British schooner, was compelled by the blockading officers to leave in ballast. It was impossible for such partiality not to be suspected of proceeding from the very great difference between the English navy and that of Norway and Sweden, and to conclude, at that early day, that the favors of the blockading squadron were confined to the ships that could command the protection of the heaviest squadrons.

The general result of inquiries made by Lord Lyons and other foreign ministers, was communicated under date of May 11th by Lord Lyons to Admiral Milne, and may be summarised as follows:

1. "That the date of the commencement of the blockade in each locality will be fixed by the issue of a notice by the commanding officer of the squadron appointed to blockade it. It does not, however, appear to be intended that such notice shall be officially communicated to the governments of neutral nations, or to their representatives in this country.

2. "That fifteen days from the beginning of the effective blockade will be allowed in every case for neutral vessels already in port to put to sea.

3. "That until the fifteen days have expired neutral vessels will be allowed to come out with or without cargoes, and whether their cargoes were shipped before or after the commencement of the blockade.

4.

"That except in the last mentioned particular, the ordinary rules of blockade will be strictly enforced.

5. "The armed vessels of neutral States will have the right to enter and depart from the blockaded ports.

66

“I continue to be of opinion that, provided the blockade be effective, and be carried on in conformity with the law of nations, we have no other course, in the absence of positive instructions from her Majesty's government, than to recognize it."

In October following Lord Lyons addressed to her Majesty's consuls in the Confederate ports the following instructions for their government, and the letter of Mr. Seward as to the commencement of the blockade :

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16th, 1861. "SIR: On the 11th of May last I made to Her Majesty's consuls in the Southern States the following announcement:

"Neutral vessels will be allowed fifteen days to leave port after the actual commencement of the blockade, whether such vessels are with or without cargoes, and whether the cargoes were shipped before or after the commencement of the blockade.'

"I enclose herewith a copy of a note which I have received to-day from the Secretary of State of the United States, and in which he informs me that the law of blockade, which does not permit a vessel in a blockaded port to take on board cargo after the commencement of the blockade, will be expected to be strictly observed by all vessels in ports blockaded by the naval forces of the United States.

"You will take note of this communication of the Secretary of State for your own guidance and that of the masters of British vessels; and you will mark carefully, and report to me, the exact date at which the present dispatch and its enclosure reach you.

"You will, without delay, send copies of this dispatch and its enclosure to your vice-consuls, for their information and guidance. "I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, "To Her Majesty's Consul at

י.

LYONS.

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE, "WASHINGTON, Oct. 16th, 1861.

"MY LORD: The Judge of the Court of the United States for the Southern district of New York having recently decided, after elaborate argument of counsel, that the law of blockade does not permit a vessel, in a blockaded port, to take on board cargo after the commencement of the blockade, with a view to avoid any future misunderstanding upon this subject you are informed that the law, as thus interpreted by the judge, will be expected to be strictly observed by all vessels in ports of insurgent States during their blockade by the naval forces of the United States. I avail myself, etc., WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

"The Right Honorable LORD LYONS."

The great interest taken by foreign nations in the blockade of the ports of the Confederate States will be appreciated from the facts that, in 1860, shipments of tobacco alone amounted to twenty millions of dollars annually, upon which the governments of Europe collected as follows: England, duty on tobacco $21,000,000; Holland, duty on tobacco $20,000,000; revenue in France $18,000,000, revenue in Spain $5,000,000— making a total of $64,000,000 of revenue. When to that sum is added the support derived by thousands of operatives in the manufacture of tobacco, as well as the profits arising from its sale, the hardships of a blockade which could prevent tobacco from reaching Europe would rise into national importance. The cotton exportation of $150,000,000 was the chief support of over five millions of people engaged in its manufacture. The consideration of the effects which a stoppage of exportation of the chief products of the Confederate

States would have upon European nations, created expectations both in the United States and in the Confederate States which were never realized. In the United States the hopes and expectations were stated by the New York Herald of May 28th, 1861, that as the blockade bars all outlets in every direction

"England, France and the other European powers will see the necessity of rendering the war as short as possible; and, therefore, they will not acknowledge the Southern Confederacy, or give it any aid or comfort; but, on the contrary, knowing that it is the only way in which a very speedy termination can be put to the conflict, they will give all the assistance possible to the United States government. Otherwise they cannot get tobacco, or cotton, or turpentine, and they cannot sell their manufactured goods in the markets of the South. They are completely in our power. A short war is manifestly the interest of the European nations, and as soon as they understand that any recognition of the Southern Confederacy is likely to prolong the war, they will consult their interest by adopting that course which will put a speedy end to it."

And in the Confederate States the power and resources of "King Cotton" to lift the blockade, admit Confederate cruisers to the Admiralty Courts of foreign nations, and to a speedy recognition of the independence and nationality of the government, was a hope and a belief that never entirely departed from either the government or the people.

Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking of the blockade, represented the necessity that existed in England for a supply of cotton, and said: "Thousands are now obliged to resort to the poor rates for subsistence, owing to this blockade, yet her Majesty's government have not sought to take advantage of the obvious imperfection of this blockade, in order to declare it ineffective. They have, to the loss and detriment of the British nation, scrupulously observed the duties of Great Britain to friendly States." The London Post (Lord Palmerston's organ), of July 24th, denying the effectiveness of the blockade, asserted that Charleston had been left for some time without any blockading force, and Admiral Milne, in obedience to orders from home, issued instructions to a frigate under his command that "no port is to be considered efficiently blockaded if any vessel can enter or depart from it unknown to or in spite of the blockading squadron-that an efficient blockade necessitates the complete cutting off of all maritime ingress or egress, and the escape of the third vessel from the blockading squadron signifies the invalidity of the blockade."

By that test there was no effective blockade at any Confederate port, and yet England respected a blockade which produced such distresses at home, rather than aid a Confederacy whose-corner stone was to be slavery. The "invalidity of the blockade" by the standard test of Admiral Milne was demonstrated in one day at Charleston. A correspondent of the New York Times, on board the U. S. steamer Roanoke,