B L O 



531 



B LO 



are. It evidently would not do to say that the belligerent 

 shall not be justified in doing anything which may in any 

 way inconvenience a neutral power ; for such a principle 

 would go nigh to tie up the hands of the belligerent alto- 

 gether, 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 incon- 

 venience, 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 commerce. On the other hand, 

 there is a manifest expediency in restricting the exercise of 

 the rights of war, for the sake of the protection of neutrals, 

 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 laid down, that belligerents are not to 

 do anything which shall have a greater tendency to incom- 

 mode 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 publicists have endeavoured to de- 

 termine the extent to which the right of blockade may pro- 

 perly be carried, and the manner in 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 move than a set of rules 

 fashioned on positive international morality (that is, so 

 much of positive morality as states in general agree in re- 

 cognizing) by judicial decision. Accordingly perhaps the 

 most complete exposition of the modern doctrine of blockade 

 may be collected from the admirable judgments delivered 

 during the course of the last war by Sir William Scott (now 

 Lord Stowell), while presiding over the High Court of Ad- 

 miralty, which have been ably reported by Dr. Edwards and 

 Sir Charles Robinson. A very convenient compendium of 

 the law, principally derived from this source, has been given 

 by Mr. Joseph Chitty in his work entitled A Practical Trea- 

 tise on the Law of Nations, 8vo. Lond. 1812. The various 

 pamphlets and published speeches of Lord Erskine, Mr. Ste- 

 phen, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Alexander Baring, Lord Sheffield, 

 and others, which appeared in the course of the controversy 

 respecting the Orders in Council, may also be consulted with 

 advantage. To these may be added various articles in 

 volumes xi. xii. xiv. and xix. of the Edinburgh Review, 

 particularly one in volume xix. pp. 290-3 1 7, headed Disputes 

 with America, written immediately before the breaking out 

 of the last war with that country. 



The first 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 Ju- 

 dith, Jan. 17, 1799), ' a blockade is a sort of circumvallation 

 round a place by which all foreign connexion and corre- 

 spondence is, as far as human power can effect it, to be en- 

 tirely cut off.' Such a check as this, it is evident, is abso- 

 lutely necessary to prevent the greatest abuse of the right 

 of blockade. The benefit accruing to a belligerent from 

 blockading its enemy's ports, by which it claims the pri- 

 vile"e of seizing any vessel that attempts to touch or has 

 actually touched at such ports, and the inconvenience 

 thereby inflicted upon neutrals, would both, without such a 

 provision, be absolutely unlimited. In point of fact, belli- 

 gerents have frequently affected, in their declarations of 

 blockade, to overstep the boundaries thus set to the exercise 

 of the right. France, as Mr. Brougham has shown in his 

 speech delivered before the House of Commons, 1st April, 

 1808, in support of the petitions of London, Liverpool, and 

 other towns, against the orders in council, has repeatedly 

 done so both since and previous to the Revolution. She did 

 so in 1739, and in 1756, and also in 1796, in 1797, and in 

 1 800. But in none of these instances were her pretended 

 blockades either submitted to by neutrals, or even to any 

 considerable extent attempted to be enforced by herself. 

 There can be no doubt that no prize court would now con- 

 demn a vessel captured for the alleged violation of any such 

 mere nominal blockade. It has however been decided 

 that the blockade is 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. 



The second, and only other circumstance necessary to 

 constitute a blockade which the prize-courts will recognize, 

 it, that the party violating it shall be proved to have been 

 aware of its existence. ' It is at all times most convenient,' 

 Sir William Scott has said in one of bis judgments (see case 



of the Rolla in Robinson's Reports), ' that the blockade 

 should be declared in a public and distinct manner.' There 

 ought to be a formal notification from the blockading power 

 to all other countries. Nevertheless this is not absolutely 

 required, and a neutral will not be permitted with impunity 

 to violate a blockade of which the master of the vessel may 

 reasonably be presumed to be aware from the mere notoriety 

 of the fact. Sir William Scott however has said that, 

 whereas when a notification has been formally given, the 

 mere act of sailing with a contingent destination to enter 

 the blockaded port if the blockade shall be found to be 

 raised, will constitute the offence of violation, it might be 

 different in the case of a blockade existing de facto only. 



With regard to neutral vessels lying at the place where 

 the blockade commences, the rule is, 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 is effected either by going into the 

 place blockaded, or by coming out of it with a cargo taken 

 in after the commencement of the blockade. But vessels 

 must not even approach the place with the evident intention 

 of entering if they can effect their object. It would even 

 appear that a vessel will render itself liable to seizure and 

 condemnation if it can be proved to have set sail with that 

 intention. In such cases however it must be always diffi- 

 cult for the captors to make out a satisfactory case. 



After a ship has once violated a blocka.de, 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 homeward voyage. If 

 the blockade however has been raised before the capture, 

 the offence is held to be no longer punishable, and a judg- 

 ment of restitution will be pronounced. 



The effect of a violation of blockade to the offending party 

 when captured, is the condemnation usually of both 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 contrary, 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 blockaded by sea only, a neutral may carry 

 on commerce with it by inland communications. The 

 neutral vessel may enter a neighbouring port not included 

 in the blockade with goods destined to be carried thence 

 over land into the blockaded place. 



When a place has once been notified to be blockaded, 9, 

 counter notice should always be given by the blockading 

 power when the blockade has ceased. The observance of 

 this formality is obviously conducive to the general con- 

 venience, but there are of course no means of punishing a 

 belligerent for its neglect. 



In this country a blockade is ordered and declared by the 

 king in council. It is held however that a commander of a 

 king's ship on a station so distant as to preclude the go- 

 vernment at home from interfering with the expedition ne- 

 cessary to meet the change of circumstances, may have au- 

 thority delegated to him to extend or vary the blockade on 

 the line of coast on which he is stationed. But the courts 

 will not recognize a blockade altered in this manner within 

 the limits of Europe. It appears to be necessary for the 

 sake of the public convenience that the power of declaring 

 a blockade should, as far as possible, be exercised only by 

 the sovereign power in a state ; but it would perhaps be 

 going too far to insist that it should in no circumstances be 

 delegated to a subordinate authority. This would seem 

 to be something very like interfering with the internal ar- 

 rangements of states. 



Some very important questions connected with the law of 

 blockade were brought into discussion in the course of the 

 late war by the Berlin decree of Bonaparte and the orders 

 of the British king in council. 



The Berlin decree, which was issued on the 21st of Nov. 

 1 806, declared the whole of the British islands in a state of 

 blockade, and all vessels, of whatever country, trading to 

 them liable to be captured by the ships of France. It also 

 shut out all British vessels and produce both from France 

 and from all the other countries then subject to the au- 

 thority of the French emperor. By a subsequent decree, 



3 Y2. 



