302 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 



alone'm her opposition to the proposal, and, but for her opposition, 

 not only would commercial blockade have become erased 

 from the Maritime Law of nations, but the evil effects of the 

 blockade of Southern ports would not have been so severely felt, as 

 the commerce between the two countries, in spite of the War would 

 comparatively have not suffered, for the United States Government, 

 being, a priori, strongly in favour of making inviolate private 

 property at sea, would, it is reasonable to believe, had the proposal 

 been carried in 1856, have willingly and faithfully carried out this 

 Convention during her great struggle. 



And, secondly, as a belligerent. When Great Britain was 

 unhappily involved in the war with Russia, between 1854 and 

 1856 she carefully avoided, in accordance with her proclamation, 

 the blockade of the commercial Russian ports, and she allowed 

 and it may be said, forcibly obtained, her vast supplies of grain 

 from Odessa, and the ports of the Sea of Azoff, and hemp, flax, 

 tallow, and jute, etc., from the Northern ports of Russia, thus render- 

 ing blockade ipso facto ■a&tSs&i,; whilst, on the other hand, it involved 

 Great Britain in a heavy outlay of money in protecting these ports, 

 besides raising the price of the grain, and especially the raw materials, 

 50 per cent., to the injury of English trade and enterprise. 



There is another view of the question, and it is an important one 

 that should not be lost sight of. In the event of war between 

 Great Britain and any one of the Powers in Europe, should the 

 former resolve on blockading the enemy's ports, such blockade would 

 prove practically useless, as the increased railway communication 

 which year by year is spreading itself into a vast network over the 

 Continent, to use the expressive words of Mr. Gladstone, " weaving 

 the nations into one," would virtually enable a belligerent still to 

 export and import through the aid of adjacent nations, and thus, 

 however complete the blockade, bid defiance to a war measure, 

 which would injure far more England that blockades, than the nation 

 that is blockaded. 



It is remarkable, therefore, that with all these indisputable facts 

 and figures arrayed against the system of commercial blockade, that 

 English Statesmen can be found, of great eminence, and English 

 writers, of considerable celebrity on International Law, who 

 advocate adhesion to a policy, which is not only condemned by 

 the judgment of civilised nations, but one obviously antagonistic 

 to the true interests of British policy. 



