The receipt of the notification, as has been indicated, will not prevent a neutral, who, at the time of receiving it, is lying in the very port blockaded, from retiring freely; and it has even been laid down in the case of The Betsey, that he may retire with a cargo which he may already have laden, and which has thereby become actually neutral property: the distinction being, that he is not at liberty to make any fresh purchase after the notification. From the case of The Rolla (6 Rob. 367) it appears that the court will hold every cargo to be a fresh purchase which is not delivered, previously to the notification, either on board the neutral ship itself or in lighters.

The breach of a blockade, existing and known, may be either by going into the place blockaded or by coming out of it with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade. But, in order to constitute such a going into the blockaded port as will subject the neutral to the penalties of confiscation, it is not necessary that the entrance be completed into the very heart of the harbour. Vessels are not permitted even to place themselves in the vicinity, if their situation be so near that they may, with impunity, break the blockade whenever they please. "If a vessel could, under pretence of proceeding further, approach close to the blockaded port, so as to be in a condition to slip in without obstruction, then," said Lord Stowell, in The Neutralitet (6 Rob. 30), "it would be impossible that any blockade could be maintained. It would, I think, be no unfair rule of evidence to hold, as a presumption de jure, that she goes there with an intention of breaking the blockade; and if such an inference may possibly operate with severity in particular cases,

where the parties are innocent in their intentions, it is a severity necessarily connected with the rules of evidence, and essential to the effectual exercise of this right of war." Still less is a neutral permitted to place himself in such a situation as to be within the protection of the batteries on the shore. (The Charlotte Christine, 6 Rob. 101; Gute Erwartung, 6 Rob. 182.)

A blockade is broken as completely by coming out as by going in. "A blockade," said Lord Stowell, in The Vrow Judith (1 Rob. 151), " is a sort of circumvallation round a place, by which all foreign connection and correspondence is, as far as human force can effect it, to be entirely cut off. It is intended to suspend the entire commerce of that place, and a neutral is no more at liberty to assist the traffic of exportation than of importation. The utmost that can be allowed to a neutral vessel is, that having already taken on board a cargo before the blockade begins, she may be at liberty to retire with it. But it must be considered as a rule, which this court means to apply, that a neutral ship departing can only take away a cargo bonâ fide purchased and delivered before the commencement of the blockade. If she afterwards takes on board a cargo, it is a fraudulent act, and a violation of the blockade." "For what is the object of blockade? Not merely to prevent an importation of supplies, but to prevent export as well as import, and to cut off all communication of commerce with the blockaded place. There may be cases of innocent egress, where vessels have gone in before the blockade; and under such circumstances it cannot be maintained that they might not be at

liberty to retire. But even then a question might arise, if it was attempted to carry out a cargo; for that would, as I have before stated, contravene one of the chief purposes of blockade. A ship then, in all cases, coming out of a blockaded port is, in the first instance, liable to seizure; and to obtain release the claimant will be required to give a very satisfactory proof of the innocency of his intentions." (Lord Stowell, in The Frederick Molke, 1 Rob. 87.) Nor will any neutral ship be permitted to escape from the penalties of breaking a blockade, because she has escaped the interior circumvallation, and has advanced some way on her voyage; the principle being that a neutral vessel is not at liberty to come out of a blockaded port with a cargo. There is no natural termination of the offence but the end of the voyage. It would be ridiculous to say, if you can but get past the blockading squadron, you are free. (Lord Stowell, in The Welvaart Van Pillau, 2 Rob. 130.)

A ship transferred in a blockaded port from one neutral to another, and coming out in ballast, is not a breach of blockade. So too where a neutral has sent in goods before the blockade, which are found unsaleable, or are otherwise withdrawn bonâ fide by the owner, they are not subject to condemnation for coming out. (The Potsdam, 4 Rob. 89.) Nor will a neutral ship coming out of a blockaded port, in consequence of a rumour that hostilities were likely to take place between the enemy and his own country, be liable to condemnation, though laden with a cargo, where the regulations of the enemy will not permit a departure in ballast. (The Drie Vrienden, 1 Dod. 269.) Where a vessel has been purchased in a blockaded port, that alone is the illegal act, and it is imma

terial out of what funds the purchase is made. Nor can she be said not to be taken in delicto, when on her voyage to the country of the purchaser, she has been driven into an intermediate port by stress of weather. (The General Hamilton, 6 Rob. 61.) The compulsory sale of cargo in the blockaded port is no excuse of breach of blockade after having gone in voluntarily. (The Byfield, Edw. 188.)

There are cases in which the breach of blockade may be excusable. In cases of this nature, the whole burden of exonerating himself from the penal consequences lies upon the party. He must show that he was led into the blockaded port by some accident which he could not control, or by some want of information which he could not obtain. In doing this, he must prove his whole case, and, however innocent his intentions may have been, he must explain his conduct in a way consistent, not only with the innocence of himself and his owner, but he must bring it within those principles which the court has found it necessary to lay down for the protection of the belligerent right, and without which no blockade can ever be maintained. (Lord Stowell, The Arthur, 1 Edwards, 203.)

The misinformation of foreign ministers as to alleged cessation of a blockade will not be received as an excuse. In the case of The Spes and Irene, amongst other arguments against condemnation (1803), it was urged that the masters had conjecturally been informed by the Consul of Hamburg at Archangel, that the blockade of the Elbe had been raised. Lord Stowell rejected this plea:-"It has been said that no intelligence of the blockade had been received from the Consul of the State of Hamburgh; though I must

presume it had, because, as the notification was made to the Consul (of Hamburg) here in London, it was his duty to make the communication to the consuls of his government in foreign ports; and as the information had arrived at Hamburg, and had been actually communicated from thence to Archangel by private channels, the same communication must be supposed to have been made from public authority to the public minister; or if not, if there had been any neglect, the consequence must be imputed only to the state and its officers, who are answerable to their subjects for the consequences of their neglect. If the information of foreign ministers could be deemed sufficient to exempt a party from all penalty, there would be no end of such excuses. Courts of justice are compelled, I think, to hold as a principle of necessary caution, that the misinformation of a foreign minister cannot be received as a justification for sailing in actual breach of an existing blockade." (5 Rob. 79.)

An excuse for breaking blockade for want of provisions "is an excuse which will not on light grounds be received, because an excuse, to be admissible, must show an imperative and overruling compulsion to enter the particular port under blockade, which can scarcely be said in any case of mere want of provisions. It may induce the master to seek a neighbouring port; but it can hardly ever force a person to resort exclusively to the blockaded port." Stowell, in The Fortuna, 5 Rob. 27.)

(Lord

In The Hurtige Hane (2 Rob. 124), Lord Stowell said, "It is usual to set up the want of water and provisions as an excuse; and if I was to admit pretences of this sort, a blockade would be nothing more