in harmony with it. Thus at the outset of the war with Russia in 1854, France and England may be considered to have affirmed the same principle, which was maintained by the Armed Neutrality, when they declared their intention " to maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade, which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy's ports, harbours, or coasts." Upon the conclusion of peace with Russia the subject of Belligerent Blockade came under the consideration of the Powers assembled at Paris in the Congress of 1856, when it was agreed to remove Declaraall uncertainty amongst themselves by declaring their Congress view of the Law Maritime on this subject, and by inviting all other Nations to accede to a common Declaration. The proposition which was accordingly adopted by the Congress was to this effect: "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy 18" § 103. If it be assumed, that there is now an established Concert amongst the European Powers with the exception of Spain 19 on the subject of a binding Blockade, and that the business of European Courts of Prize in the majority of cases will henceforth be to ascertain whether an asserted Blockade is maintained in a manner which satisfies the Declaration of the Congress of Paris, it will be of importance to consider what is the meaning to be fairly attached to the words "sufficient really to pre 18 Les blocus, pour être obligatoires, doivent être effectifs, c'est-à-dire, maintenus par une force suffisante pour interdire réellement l'accès du littoral de l'ennemi. Martens, N. R. Gen. XV. p. 792. The English text is taken from a paper presented 19 Spain has not acceded tion of the of Paris. istics of an Character vent access to the coast of the enemy," and whether effective there are any judicial decisions which will guide us blockade. in arriving at a just interpretation of those words. An analogous question came under the consideration of the High Court of Admiralty of England in the case of the Franciska 20 (25 Jan. 1855), when Dr. Lushington was called upon to determine, whether the blockade imposed upon the port of Riga was an Effective Blockade. That learned Judge, after observing that all definitions are and must be from the nature of blockades loose and uncertain, goes on to say, "The maintenance of a blockade must always be a question of degree-of the degree of danger attending ships going into or leaving a blockaded port. Nothing is further from my intention nor indeed more opposed to my notions of the Law of Nations than any relaxation of the rule, that a blockade must be sufficiently maintained: but it is perfectly obvious, that no force could bar the entrance to absolute certainty; that vessels may get in and get out during the night, or fogs, or violent winds, or occasional absence; that it is most difficult to judge from numbers alone. Hence I believe that in every case the enquiry has been, whether the force was competent and present, and if so, the performance of the duty was presumed; and I think I may safely assert, that in no case was a blockade held to be void, when the blockading force was on the spot or near thereto, on the ground of vessels entering into or escaping from the port, where such ingress or egress did not take place with the consent of the blockading squadron." The circumstance of one or two vessels being successful in eluding the vigilance of a blockading 20 The Franciska. Spinks, Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Reports, II. p. 128, squadron has never hitherto been held sufficient to rebut the presumption of law arising from the fact, that a squadron adequate in point of numbers to command all the approaches to a port has been stationed before it, nor has the accidental absence of a blockading squadron from its cruising ground from stress of weather ever been adjudged to work a legal suspension of an actual Blockade. Lord Stowell has observed that when a squadron is driven off by accidents of weather, which must have entered into the contemplation of the belligerent imposing the blockade, there is no reason to suppose that such a circumstance would create a change of system, since it could not be expected that any blockade would continue for many months without being liable to such temporary interruptions". But when a blockading squadron is driven off by a superior force, a new course of events may arise, which may tend to a very different disposition of the blockading force, and which introduces a very different train of presumptions in favour of the ordinary freedom of commercial speculations. In such a case the neutral merchant is not bound to foresee or conjecture, that the blockade will be resumed 22. So if a blockading squadron should be despatched upon an expedition elsewhere, leaving only a small force to continue the blockade and to apprise vessels of its existence, such a measure has been held to be insufficient to maintain the blockade, as it is the duty of the blockading Power to keep such a force on the ground, as would be of itself sufficient to enforce the blockade. The Lords of Appeal held in the case of an alleged breach of the blockade of the island of Martinique, that the 21 The Columbia, 1 Ch. Rob. p. 156. 22 The Hoffnung, Schmidt. 6 Ch. Rob p. 117. Knowledge on the part of the master of a vessel with actual omission to keep a number of vessels on the different stations, so communicating with each other as to be able to intercept all vessels attempting to enter the ports of the island, was a neglect which necessarily led neutral vessels to believe that those ports might be entered without incurring any risk 23. The periodical appearance of a vessel of war in the offing could not be supposed to be a continuation of blockade, which had been previously maintained by a number of vessels, and with such rigour that no vessel whatever had been able to enter the island during its continuance. On the other hand, Sir W. Grant held that under particular circumstances a single vessel may be adequate to maintain the blockade of one port and cooperate with other vessels at the same time in the blockade of another neighbouring port; and likewise that the temporary absence of the blockading vessels from their station, whilst employed in chasing suspicious vessels, was no interruption of the blockade 25. $104. The second question which demands consideration, is what shall be taken to establish a knowledge of the blockade on the part of the master dispenses of a vessel attempting to enter or come out of a warning. blockaded port. It is obvious that, as all questions of International Right presume good Faith, a knowledge of the fact of a blockade, howsoever acquired, will preclude a neutral master from any claim to receive a direct warning from the blockading squadron 26, even if the vessel should have sailed from the port, where she had shipped her cargo, without a knowledge of the blockade. Thus by Article XVIII 23 The Nancy, Hurd. 1 Acton, p. 58. 24 The Nancy, Woodberry. Ibid. p. 63. 65. 25 The Eagle, Acton, p. 26 The Franciska. Spinks, Eccl. and Admiralty Reports, II. p. 113. of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and the United States of America" (19 Nov. 1794) it was provided that "Whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the place is either besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is agreed that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, confiscated, unless after notice." Lord Stowell was called upon to interpret this Treaty in dealing with the case of an American vessel taken in a voyage from Hamburg to Amsterdam, which latter port was under blockade. It appeared that the vessel had sailed from America with innocent intentions on the part of the owners, for it was not known at that time in America, that Amsterdam was in a state of investment. It was therefore contended on behalf of the owners, that under the Treaty with Great Britain, the vessel could not be confiscated for breach of blockade, unless she had attempted to enter the port of Amsterdam after notice that it was under blockade. 'It has been said," observed Lord Stowell, in the course of his judgment, "that by the American Treaty, there must be previous warning. Certainly where vessels sail without a knowledge of the blockade, a notice is necessary; but if you can affect them with knowledge of that fact, a warning then becomes an idle ceremony, of no use, and therefore not to be required 28. The Master, the Consignees, and all persons intrusted with the management of the vessel, appear to have been sufficiently informed of this blockade, and therefore they are not in the situation 27 Martens, Récueil, V. p. 676. 28 The Columbia, 1 Ch. Rob. P. 154. Fitzsimmons v. The 66 Newport Insurance Company, 4 |