§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:I have given notice to the noble Bail the Foreign Secretary, that I would put a Question to him respecting the papers which he proposed the other night to lay upon the table. In asking whether among those papers we shall find any accounts from the Admiral on the North American station, or from our consuls at the various ports in the United States, as to the exact state of the blockade of the Southern ports, the noble Earl may be sure I am not asking in any spirit of cavil at the policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued, and I am glad to add my humble tribute I of approbation, and to say, what my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) said the other night, that I think the noble Ear has carried out that policy with great judgment, and has fully maintained the honour and dignity of this country. I am the more anxious not to be misunderstood because, in the strangest and most unaccountable manner, my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Derby) has been misunderstood and misrepresented by the leading journal, both to-day and on a previous day; and although my noble Friend gave that journal an opportunity of retracing its steps by explaining what be said in his speech on Thursday night as to the question of the blockade of American ports, yet this morning there is in that newspaper an article warning the public against the advice given by my noble Friend upon that occasion. My noble Friend never used a single expression that could be construed into a desire to press upon the public mind the desirability of breaking the blockade. Nor would I do I so; for it would be inconsistent with what I conceive to be true policy to sty one word to induce the Government to take that course one moment before they thought 114 that it should be taken. It must be a question of time and judgment with the Government; and, therefore, I wish to repeat that no persons on this side of the House are pressing the Government to pursue any other line of conduct than that which they seem now to be pursuing. But, although that may he my view of the right policy to be followed, I wish to know what are the real facts, and what is exactly the state of the blockade? Possibly there may be a great deal of exaggeration in the statements we hear, but I have been told — for I have not the honour of knowing the gentleman—that Mr. Mason, who, as we; are all aware, has recently come over here to represent the Southern States, openly declares that no less than 600 or 700 ships have broken the blockade and passed in and out of the Southern ports. It is desirable, therefore, that Parliament and the country should be properly prepared to form some judgment upon the matter. As I said, it is a question of time and judgment for the Government, knowing the facts, when they shall feel called upon to vindicate international law. I am aware that under the particular circumstances of the case, and seeing what events might soon follow, perhaps putting an end to the struggle altogether, it would be impolitic to hasten our steps with regard to this blockade; but still we should know what are the real facts. It is evidently impossible, after a certain time, when the opinion of all the great Powers of Europe has been strongly pronounced, speaking of the blockade as not legal according to international law, and after the statement of Mr. Mason, if true, it will be impossible for the whole world to continue to suffer the inconveniences which the present state of things exposes them to. I would ask the noble Earl whether among the papers we shall have an exact account of the state of the blockade as given by the Admiral and our consuls. A great deal has been said about the Declaration of 1856. I am sorry that Lord Clarendon is not present, as I do not like to speak upon a subject of this nature in the absence of the person who I believe originated the Declaration; but it may be remembered that at the time I expressed my opinion as to the policy of that Declaration. I think, too, that if we were to look back to the debates of that period we should find that the noble Earl, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in some degree at least coincided with me. I did not believe that any article of that 115 Declaration would eventually be carried out when a great war should take place. I warned the country that although it was extremely creditable to the Christian feeling and philanthropy of the noble Earl who originated that Declaration, yet we could not rely upon its being adhered to throughout a great war. I did not think you could lay down that strict rule as to blockades, and we now find that it is a wise policy not to enforce that part of the Declaration. Neither do I believe you can carry out the Declaration as far as it relates to privateers. I do not believe that a great maritime country should be bound by such a Declaration; but, at all events, I am certain that in a great war circumstances would be too strong for an adherence to it. Supposing that the two great maritime Powers of England and France were at war; at first the Declaration might be adhered to, and a sort of duel would be observed between the Royal navies of both countries: but supposing the events which have before occurred were to happen again—that the English fleets destroyed the greater portion of the French war navy, and blockaded the remainder in their ports—could it be believed that that warlike people, being brought to bay, would not have recourse to the law of self-preservation, and adopt any means to drive away the hostile fleets from their coasts, and loosen the gripe which strangled them? The only means would be to issue letters of marque all over the world, to prey upon our commerce, and compel us to withdraw our ships to protect our trade. Then, again, we know how far we can rely upon the principle of arbitration included in the Declaration of 1856. We know that in 1859 we tried that principle—to prevent war by intermediation. I had the honour to be in office at that time, in the Government of my noble Friend, and I know that principle was constantly appealed to by the great Powers; but human passions were too strong, and Austrians and Italians were too angry to listen to mediators. I mention these things because I think it is well to bear them in mind at the present time.