BLOCKADE, LAW OK. 



BLOCKADE, LAW OF. 



I and ol a form to At the countersink, u in two parts, one of 

 , hrii a barrel which fa to enter the outre bole ; the parts arc 

 then introduced and riveted to the (heave. The uii.l.ll.- |>art of the 

 ooak u then broached out so as to form a hoi* perfectly cylindrical ; 

 ltd. b*Uy, by a lathe aba oonneeted with the engine, the rope U 

 formed round the circumference of the (heave. 



The pins, whieh are of iron, are turned by a lathe of great strength, 

 and are highly polkbed by being drawn with a revolving motion 

 )i> men Iwn phtss 



Bo*** rtstsitVW-n been neeeiearily oinitUid in the foregoing descrip- 

 tion bat foough are given to nuke the operation of theee engiuea 

 Mmciently dear to the general reader. 



BLOCKADE, LAW OF. Whenever a war take* place it affecU in 

 various waye all etate* which have any connection with the belligerent 

 powers. A principal part, accordingly, of the eoienoe of international 

 bw that which respect* the righte of *ucfa neutral states. For 

 obvious reaeone thu u al*> the moet intricate part of the anbjwt 

 There u here a general rule, namely, that the neutral ought not to be 

 at all interfered with, oonnicting with a great rariety of exception-. 

 derived from what u conceived to be the right of each of the belli- 

 gereoU to proeecute the object of annoying iu enemy, even though 

 (within certain limit*) it inflicts injury upon a third party. In the first 

 place, there u to be settled the question of what them limit* are. It 

 evidently would not do to Bay that the belligerent shall not be justified 

 in doing anything which may in any way inconvenience a neutral 

 power ; for auch a principle would go nigh to tie up the hands of the 

 belligerent altogether, inasmuch as almost any hostile act whatever 

 might in this way be construed into an injury by neutral states. They 

 might complain, for instance, that they suffered an inconvenience when 

 a belligerent power seized upon the ships of its enemy that were on 

 their way to supply other countries with the ordinary articles of com- 

 merce. On the other hand, there U a manifest expediency in restricting 

 the exercise of the rights of war, for the sake of the protection of neu- 

 trals, to as great an extent as is compatible with the effectual pursuit 

 of the end for which war is waged. Accordingly, it has been commonly 

 bid down, that belligerents are not to do anything which shall have a 

 greater tendency to incommode neutrals than to benefit themselves. 

 It is evident however that this is a very vague rule, the application 

 of which must give rise to many questions. 



It is by this rule that publicist* have endeavoured to determine the 

 extent to which the right of blockade may properly be carried, and the 

 m.t.r^-- m which it ought to be exercised. We can only notice the 

 principal conclusions to which they have come, which, indeed, so far as 

 they are generally admitted, are nothing more than a act of rules 

 fashioned on positive international morality (that in, BO much of 

 positive morality as states in general agree in recognising) by judicial 

 djfljsj-m Accordingly perhaps the most complete exposition of the 

 modern doctrine of blockade may be collected from the admirable 

 judgments delivered in the course of the war which closed in 1815 by 

 BirW. Scott, afterwards Lord Stowell, while presiding over the High 

 Court of Admiralty, 1 as] reported by Dr. Edwards and Sir Chr. 

 Robinson. The extraordinary events of that time, and the extravagant 

 decrees of the Emperor Napoleon, celebrated as the Berlin and Milan 

 Decrees, and the ill-advised course of retaliation adopted by our govern- 

 ment in the Orders in Council, to which specific reference will be uvula 

 immediately, raised this point of international law into unusual, but 

 in the circumsUnoes not undeserved, importance. It engaged the 

 attention of the British Parliament, and filled the political literature of 

 the day. The various pamphlets and published speeches of Lori) 

 Erskine, Mr. Stephen, Mr. (now Lord) Brougham, Mr. Alexander 

 Baring (afterwards Lord Ashburton), Lord Sheffield, and others, which 

 appeared in the course of the controversy respecting the Orders in 

 Council, may abo be consulted with advantage. To these may be 

 added various article in volumes xi., xii., xiv., and xix. of the ' Edin- 

 burgh Beview,' particularly one in volume xix., pp. 290-81 7, headed 

 ' Disputes with America,' written immediately before the breaking out 

 of the war with that country. 



The Ant and the essential circumstance necessary to make a good 

 blockade is, that there be actually stationed at the place a sufficient 

 force to prevent the entry or exit of vessels. Sir William Scott has 

 said (case of the Vrow Judith, Jan. 17, 1799), " a blockade is a sort of 

 etrcumvallatiun round a place by which all foreign connection and 

 oorrespondence fa, as far as human power can effect it, to be entirely 

 out oC" This fa in perfect accordance with the language of the con- 

 vention signed between Great Britain and Russia in 1801 ; it states, 

 that in order to determine what characterise* a blockaded port, that 

 ilsnnmlMtinn b given only where there is, by the disposition of the 

 power which attacks it with ships, stationery or sufficiently near, an 

 evident danger in entering.* Such a restriction as thin, it fa evident, 

 b absolutely necessary to prevent the greatest abuse of the right of 

 blockade. The benefit accruing to a belligerent from blockading iu 

 r's ports, by which it claim* the privilege of seiaing any vessel 

 i to touch or he* actually touched at such porU, and the 

 thereby Inflicted upon neutrals, would both, without 

 ench a provision, b* absolutory unlimited. In point of fact, belligerent* 

 have frequently affected, in their declaration, of blockade, to overstep 

 the boundaries thus set to the exercise of the right. France, a* Lord 

 Brougham showed in his speech delivered before the Houee of Com- 



of London, Liverpool, 



,- ... ;.. ,-. ft .: M 



iliil so in 1739, and in 

 But in none of these 



l.v neutrals 



mons, 1st April, 1808, in support of t 

 and other town* against the Orders i 

 both since and previous to the Revol 

 175'i, and abo in 1796, in 1 

 instance* were her pretended blockar 

 or even, to any considerable extent, attempted to be enforced by herself. 

 There can be no doubt that no prize court would now condemn a vessel 

 i-.ipuued for the alleged violation of any such mere nominal blockade. 

 Accordingly, the language of the British government on this point 

 during the last war with Russia was definite and firm beyond a <l..ni.t. 

 In the royal declaration of the 28th of March, 1864, by which the 

 British crown waived the right of seizing enemy's goods on board a 

 neutral ship, these words were added : " We must support the right of 

 a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade 

 which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy'.-. 

 forte, harbours, or coasts." And finally, on the 16th of April, 1856, 

 the Powers who were parties to the treaty of Paris 'of the same year, 

 while yet assembled at Pans, agreed and solemnly declared that block- 

 ades, in order to be binding, must be effective ; that fa to say, main- 

 tained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the 

 enemy. And it was further agreed to invite the accession of the other 

 States of the world to this and the other principles of maritime law 

 adopted by theee Powers at the same time. It has however been 

 decided that the blockade fa good although the ships stationed at the 

 place may have been for a short time removed to a little distance by a 

 sudden change of wind, or any similar cause ; and no doubt the doctrine 

 would still be maintained in this country, and it fa likely too in the 

 United States. But French publicists, now taking to the other extreme 

 from that formerly pursued by their government, contend that this 

 doctrine has the effect of giving to the mere notification the inle- 

 pendent force of on effective blockade. 



The second and only other circumstance necessary to constitute a 

 blockade such as the prize-courts will recognise fa, that the party 

 violating it shall be proved to have been aware of it* existence. There 

 ore two species of blockade : the one by the simple fact only of the place 

 being surrounded by on effective hostile force ; the other by a notification 

 accompanied with the fact. These are attended with a corresponding 

 difference of consequences. The effect of a notification to any foreign 

 government would clearly be to include all the individuals of that 

 nation ; and ignorance of the blockade, though it might be a ground of 

 appeal to the offender's own government for indemnity, could be no 

 defence in the courts of the belligerent nation. After this, the mere 

 act of sailing for the blockaded place is sufficient to constitute the 

 offence of breach of blockade, and this although the intention to enter 

 wag contingent on the actual raising of the blockade. There fa this 

 further difference between these species of blockade : that in the case 

 of a blockade dt facto, when the fact ceases otherwise than by accident 

 or shifting of the wind, there fa immediately an end of the blockade ; 

 but where the fact fa accompanied by a public notification from the 

 government of a belligerent country to a neutral government, primd 

 facie the blockade must be presumed to exist till it bos been publicly 

 repealed. At the same time, it is always in the power of governments 



ing the blockaded port 

 with their cargoes, unless they have already had a previous warning 

 and neglected it. Such a treaty was concluded between Great Britain 

 and the United States in 1794. 



With regard to neutral vessels lying at the place where the blockade 

 commences, the rule fa, that they may retire freely after the notification 

 of the blockade, taking with them the cargoes with which they may be 

 already laden ; but they must not take in any new cargo. 



The offence of violation fa effected either by going into the place 

 blockaded, or by coming out of it with a cargo taken in after the com- 

 mencement of the blockade. Vessels must not even approach the 

 place with the evident intention of entering if they can effect their 

 object. It even appears that a vessel will render itself liable to seizure 

 I'lrmnation if it can be proved to have set sail with that inten- 

 ti< >n. In such coses, however, it must be always difficult for the captors 

 to make out a satisfactory case. 



After a ship has once violated a blockade, it is considered that the 

 offence is not purged, in ordinary circumstances, until she shall have 

 returned to the port from which she originally set out ; that is to say, 

 she may be seized at any moment up to the termination of her home- 

 ward voyage ; and if she fa chased, after such breach of blockade, by a 

 belligerent veesel into her own or any other port, she continue* liable 

 to seizure on coming out again from that port. If the blockade, how- 

 ever, has been raised before the capture, the offence is held to be no 

 longer punishable, and a judgment of restitution will be pronounced. 



The effect of a violation of blockade to the offending party when 

 raptured, in the condemnation usually of Iwth the ship and the cargo. 

 If, however, it can be shown that the parties to whom the cargo 

 belongs were not implicated in the offence committed by the master of 

 the ship, the cargo will be restored. It has sometimes on the con- 

 trary, happened that the owners of the cargo have been found to be 

 the only guilty parties, in which case the judgment has been for the 

 condemnation of the cargo, and the restitution of the ship. 



If a place, as generally happens in the case of maritime blockades, be 



