Слике страница
PDF
ePub

which the Treaty supposes." The Lords of Appeal have on a recent occasion affirmed Lord Stowell's view with this caution, that there must be no reasonable doubt of the fact, from which the knowledge of the master is to be presumed. "While their Lordships," they said, "are quite prepared to hold that the existence and extent of a blockade may be so well and so generally known, that knowledge of it in an individual may be presumed without distinct proof of personal knowledge, and that knowledge so acquired may supply the place of a direct communication from the blockading squadron; yet the fact, with notice of which the individual is to be fixed, must be one which admits of no reasonable doubt. Any communication which brings it to the knowledge of the party, to use the language of Lord Stowell in the Rolla (6 Ch. Rob. p. 367) in a way which could leave no doubt in his mind as to the authenticity of the information, will be binding on him 29. Construct- § 105. But there are cases in which no actual proof may be forthcoming from the ship's papers or otherwise against the Master and crew of a neutral vessel of their personal knowledge of the fact of a blockade, and yet there may be established against them a constructive knowledge, which will preclude them from setting up in their defence personal ignorance. Thus it has been held by the British Prize Courts, that where there has been a public Notification of a blockade from the Government of a belligerent to a neutral State, all the subjects of the latter must after a reasonable time 30 be supposed to be cognisant of the blockade. To allow individuals to plead ignorance of a blockade,

ive notice.

29 Northcote v Douglas (The Franciska). 10 Moore's P. C. Reports, p. 58.

"

30 The Neptunus, 2 Ch. Rob. p. 111. The Spes and Irene, 5 Ch. Rob. p. 79.

Notifica

which had been notified to their Government, would entirely defeat the object of the Notification. "The Public effect of a Notification to any foreign Government," tion. says Lord Stowell 31,"would clearly be to include all the individuals of that Nation: it would be the most nugatory thing in the world, if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it. It is the duty of foreign Governments to communicate the information to their Subjects, whose interests they are bound to protect. I shall hold, therefore, that a neutral master can never be heard to aver against a Notification of a blockade, that he is ignorant of it." Such being the Law of the English Admiralty Courts in regard to the Subjects of States to which a direct Notification of a blockade has been addressed, those Courts have further held that the Notification of a blockade from the Government of a State made to the principal States of Europe, will in time affect the rest, not so much proprio vigore, as in the way of evidence against them. The general notoriety of a General blockade will therefore be presumed after it has been publicly notified and de facto maintained for a considerable time; and the English Prize Courts have held, that it would be a fraudulent omission on the part of a neutral master not to take notice of a matter, which was a subject of general notoriety in the port where he shipped his cargo, although it might not have been formally notified to his own Government. It was amongst the points insisted upon by the States General in their Ordinance of 26 June 1630, that the ports of Flanders were not merely blockaded de facto, but were reputed to be under blockade by the Dutch fleets. The necessity therefore of giving notice on the spot to vessels entering a blockaded port, before they can be justly 31 The Adelaide, 2 Ch. Rob. p. 11 in notis.

Notoriety.

The Fact of a blockade must ac

made liable to the consequences of breaking the blockade, does not arise when the blockade has been notified in a public and solemn manner by a Declaration on the part of the executive Government to foreign Powers. Where, on the other hand, the blockade is established by the commander of a squadron without any public Notification on the part of his Government, the notoriety of the fact of an actual blockade will not be presumed against the master of a neutral vessel, so as to disentitle him to the benefit of an actual notice from the blockading force on his arrival in the neighbourhood of the blockaded port. Thus the instructions transmitted by the Lords of the Admiralty on 8 January 1804 to Commodore Hood in regard to the blockade of the islands of Martinique and Guadaloupe were, that he was not to consider any blockade of those islands as existing, unless in respect of particular ports, which may be actually invested, and then not to capture vessels bound to such ports, unless they shall previously have been warned not to enter them 2. It is otherwise however with vessels coming out of a blockaded port. There no notice is necessary, after the blockade has existed de facto for any length of time; the continued fact is itself a sufficient notice, as it is impossible for those within to be ignorant of the forcible suspension of their commerce. The notoriety of the thing in this case supersedes the necessity of particular notice to each ship 33.

31

§ 106. M. Hautefeuille discusses the blockade by notification and the blockade by notoriety, as if they the Notifi were varieties of paper blockades or fictitious block

cord with

cation.

32 Tutela, 6 Ch. Rob. p. 179. 33 The Vrow Judith, 1 Ch. Rob. p. 153.

34 Des Droits des Nations Neutres, Tit. IX. c. 5. § 1. and

2.

ades; but such is not the meaning of those terms as employed in the English Courts of Admiralty. The Lords of Appeal in Prize cases have long since held that a proclamation of blockade is not in itself sufficient to constitute a legal blockade. Thus the West India islands were declared under blockade by Admiral Jarvis, but the Lords held that as the fact did not support the declaration, a blockade could not be deemed legally to exist 36; and on a recent occasion during the Russian War (30 Nov. 1855) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that the notice of a blockade must not be more extensive than the blockade itself, otherwise the neutral will be at liberty to disregard such notice, and will not be liable to the penalties attending a breach of blockade for afterwards attempting to enter the port which is really blockaded 37. To the same effect Lord Stowell has observed, "There are two sorts of blockade; one by the simple fact only; the other by notification, accompanied with the fact 38. It would be an error to suppose that the British Courts of Admiralty admit that the mere Notification of a blockade is sufficient to constitute a legal blockade: there must be likewise a blockade de facto at the time of Notification, otherwise the Notification will not have any legal effect. Such was the view of the British Government, as expressed by them in a note communicated to the Government of the United States of America in 1807, by its Minister, Mr. Forster, on the subject of the blockade of 1806 and 1807. "Great Britain," they said, "has never contested, that ac

[blocks in formation]

the French

cording to the customary Law of Nations every block-
ade, in order that it should be justified, ought to be
maintained by a sufficient force, and place in danger
every vessel that shall attempt to evade it. It was
in accordance with this principle that the blockade of
1806 was not notified to foreign Powers by Mr. Fox,
until after he had been convinced by a Report from the
Board of Admiralty, that the Admiralty had adopted
and would employ every means to watch the coast
from Brest to the Elbe, and to place this blockade
really in execution. The blockade therefore of the
month of May 1806, was full and legitimate in its
origin, since it was maintained not merely in inten-
tion, but in fact by a sufficient force 39."

Practice of § 107. The substantial difference which the British
Courts as Courts make between a blockade which has been
to notice. notified to neutral Governments, and a blockade
which has not been so notified, is, that vessels in the
former case are not entitled to a direct warning from
the blockading squadron, before they can be captured
as Prize of War for violating the blockade. On the
other hand, the French Courts are more lenient on
the subject of direct warning; for the practice of
the French Government 40 is to instruct their cruisers
to give actual notice on the spot to all parties at-
tempting for the first time to enter a port which has

39 A French version of this note, of which the above is a translation, is given by M. Hautefeuille, Tom. II. p. 257. The same doctrine was maintained in a note from Lords Holland and Auckland, the British Plenipotentiaries, addressed to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, the United States' Commissioners, 31 Dec. 1806. Papers presented to Parliament in 1808.

40 The ancient practice was more rigorous, if we may judge from the Règlement of 26 July 1778, (Lebeau, Tom. II. p. 58.) under which French privateers were authorised to capture all neutral vessels, "qui porteroient des secours à des places bloquées, investées, ou assiégées," no mention being made of a preliminary warning.

L

« ПретходнаНастави »