522

EARLY ENGLISH AUTHORITIES

cision was affirmed by the Lords Commissioners, and the captors condemned in costs.

The Sophia Elizabeth (ibid. 46) was a vessel taken for breach of the blockade of the rivers Elbe and Weser, and it was claimed that the government relaxation of the blockade in favor of the Hanse towns was applicable to this capture and entitled the claimant to restoration of property. But the Lords held otherwise and the vessel was condemned, thereby affirming a similar decree of the court below in this and two other cases: namely, the Charlotta Sophia, and the Klein Jungen, ibid. pp. 56, 57.

The Nancy, Hurd (ibid: 57), was a vessel restored for alleged breach of the blockade of Martinique. It appeared that the blockading force left on an expedition to Surinam, without leaving behind an adequate force to preserve and maintain the blockade. The withdrawal of the force lifted the blockade, and let in neutrals, as they were led to believe the ports might be entered without incurring any risk. The periodical appearance of a vessel of war in the offing could not be supposed to be a continuation of the blockade, for to constitute a blockade, the intention to close a port should be generally made known to vessels navigating the seas in the vicinity; and the blockaders are bound to keep a sufficient number of vessels on the different stations in such communication with each other as to be able to intercept all vessels attempting to enter the interdicted ports.

The Robert (ibid. 62) was the case of a vessel entering a port under a de facto blockade. Ignorance of its existence was pleaded to justify, but without avail, and condemnation followed.

The Nancy, Woodbury (ibid. 63), was at first restored

by the Vice-Admiralty Court, but the Lords, relying upon the judgment of the commander of the station and by invoking papers to prove the existence of the blockade, reversed the sentence of restoration and held that a single vessel was completely adequate to the service to be performed, and condemned the vessel as prize to the captors. And several other vessels, coming within the same principles, were likewise condemned for breach of blockade, p. 65.

In the Eagle (ibid. 65), it was held that the chasing of vessels of doubtful description, in the neighborhood of a port under blockade, did not legally operate as a cessation of blockade.

The Nordstern (ibid. 128) presented a question of joint capture, where the principal authorities will be found carefully collected by the late George Minot, Esquire, in Am. Ed. of Eng. Adm. Reports.

The Little William (ibid. 141) presented a question of alleged violation of blockade of the Elbe, by approaching to inquire of cruisers, but the master of the captured vessel was held justified by his owner's instructions, and the ship and cargo restored.

The Dispatch (ibid. 163) settled a similar principle in regard to the blockade of Bremen.

Die Jungfer Charlotta (ibid. 171) was the case of a continuous voyage. Vide The Maria, 5 Ch. Rob. 365.

In the Hare (ibid. 252), it was determined that a knowledge of the intent to blockade Cadiz binds a neutral, and the presence of a fleet to blockade renders formal notification unnecessary.

The Manchester (2 Acton, 60), said Sir W. Grant, "must be pronounced a clear case of breach of the (Cadiz) blockade inward; the vessel also appears to have broken a blockade formally notified by egress."

The Success (1 Dods. 131) was the case of a ship, in part Swedish, and in part British, claimed to be protected against the order of January 7, 1807, by a later order of June 20, 1810; but the claim was not sustained. Sir Wm. Scott (p. 132), said: "It is a known rule of law, that when parties agree to take the flag and pass of another country, they are not permitted, in case any inconvenience should afterwards arise, to aver against the flag and pass to which they have attached themselves, and to claim the benefit of their real character. They are likewise subject to this further inconvenience, that their own real character may be pleaded against them by others. Such is the state of double disadvantage to which persons expose themselves by assuming the flag and pass of a foreign state."

Sweden had declared war, but it had not been answered by a counter declaration on the part of Great Britain. The effect of such unilateral declaration the court declined to determine as unnecessary, and observed:

"The relative situation of British subjects to Sweden depended upon the order in council whereby countries actually at war, as well as those from which the British flag was excluded, were placed in a state of blockade.

"This measure resorted to must exclude British as well as neutral ships. Any other construction would operate as a gross violation of rights the effect being to exclude neutrals and permit British to trade without restriction, to ports from which neutrals were excluded. That would be a shameful violation of a belligerent right, thus to convert the blockade into a mere instrument of commercial monopoly.

"Though a contrary mode of proceeding might possi

bly be attended with advantage, yet it would not be a legitimate advantage, as it must be incompatible with the rights of other countries. These considerations would dispose of the case as far as British interests are concerned."

Nor would the indulgence designed for Swedish ships avail to protect the Success. She was not legally a Swedish ship. Her flag and pass did not describe her true character. She was disguised, being a fraction only of a Swedish ship. To be truly such, she must have been totally Swedish, without any alloy of other interests. To permit this would give all other neutrals unqualified "liberty to engage in this course of trade, and the blockade would be entirely at an end; and only such ships as are entirely Swedish, were entitled to the favorable operation of the instructions issued June, 1811." And, therefore, both ship and cargo were condemned.

The Bennett (ibid. 175) was captured on her voyage from London to San Lucar. She was owned by British subjects, but sailing under a British license, as to an American ship. This disguise was excused, as it was not assumed for an artifice and fraud to impose upon the British government, but to elude its enemy, the French; and the ship was restored. Sir William Scott said: "It has been the practice of all times to assume disguise for the purpose of imposing upon enemies. The practice is as old as the records of this or any other court. It is not a matter of innovation. European states, when in declared hostility, stand in need of commodities which can only be obtained from countries in possession of their enemies; and ships have at all times been permitted to assume disguise for the purpose of

supplying such necessities. It is no new doctrine," and vessels, under the disguise of neutrals or allies, have thus constantly obtained admission and permission.

In the Arthur (ibid. 423), the nature and requisites of the blockade imposed by the order of April 26, 1809, were considered. The question arose upon a claim of joint capture, promoted in behalf of the schooner Paz, against the gun-brig Blazer; and this reference to the case is now made for the purpose of giving the court's version and interpretation of that famous order. Sir W. Scott said: "The blockade imposed by it is applicable to a very great extent of coast (including ports of Italy, France, and Holland to the River Ems), and was never intended to be maintained according to the usual and regular mode of enforcing blockades, by stationing a number of ships and forming, as it were, an arch of circumvallation round the mouth of the prohibited port. Then, if the arch fails in any one part, the blockade itself fails altogether; but this species of blockade, which has arisen out of the violent and unjust conduct of the enemy, was maintained by a ship stationed anywhere in the neighborhood of the coast, or, as in this case, in the river (Ems) itself, observing and preventing every vessel that might endeavor to effect a passage up or down the river."

The Naples Grant (2 Dods. 273) was also a question of joint capture, but involved the discussion and def inition of important points touching blockade and its commencement. This grant was the term employed to designate a fund of £150,000 to remunerate the services of the crews of three ships (the Tremendous, Alcmene, and Grasshopper), in watching the movements of several Neapolitan ships of war. The blockade was