squadron has never hitherto been held sufficient to rebut the presumption of law arising from the fact, that a squadron adequate in point of numbers to command all the approaches to a port has been stationed before it, nor has the accidental absence of a blockading squadron from its cruising ground from stress of weather ever been adjudged to work a legal suspension of an actual Blockade. Lord Stowell has observed that when a squadron is driven off by accidents of weather, which must have entered into the contemplation of the belligerent imposing the blockade, there is no reason to suppose that such a circumstance would create a change of system, since it could not be expected that any blockade would continue for many months without being liable to such temporary interruptions". But when a blockading squadron is driven off by a superior force, a new course of events may arise, which may tend to a very different disposition of the blockading force, and which introduces a very different train of presumptions in favour of the ordinary freedom of commercial speculations. In such a case the neutral merchant is not bound to foresee or conjecture, that the blockade will be resumed 22. So if a blockading squadron should be despatched upon an expedition elsewhere, leaving only a small force to continue the blockade and to apprise vessels of its existence, such a measure has been held to be insufficient to maintain the blockade, as it is the duty of the blockading Power to keep such a force on the ground, as would be of itself sufficient to enforce the blockade. The Lords of Appeal held in the case of an alleged breach of the blockade of the island of Martinique, that the

21 The Columbia, 1 Ch. Rob. p. 156.

22 The Hoffnung, Schmidt. 6 Ch. Rob p. 117.

Knowledge on the part of the

inaster of a vessel

with actual

omission to keep a number of vessels on the different stations, so communicating with each other as to be able to intercept all vessels attempting to enter the ports of the island, was a neglect which necessarily led neutral vessels to believe that those ports might be entered without incurring any risk 23. The periodical appearance of a vessel of war in the offing could not be supposed to be a continuation of a blockade, which had been previously maintained by a number of vessels, and with such rigour that no vessel whatever had been able to enter the island during its continuance. On the other hand, Sir W. Grant held that under particular circumstances a single vessel may be adequate to maintain the blockade of one port and cooperate with other vessels at the same time in the blockade of another neighbouring port; and likewise that the temporary absence of the blockading vessels from their station, whilst employed in chasing suspicious vessels, was no interruption of the blockade 25.

$104. The second question which demands consideration, is what shall be taken to establish a knowledge of the blockade on the part of the master dispenses of a vessel attempting to enter or come out of a warning. blockaded port. It is obvious that, as all questions of International Right presume good Faith, a knowledge of the fact of a blockade, howsoever acquired, will preclude a neutral master from any claim to receive a direct warning from the blockading squadron 26, even if the vessel should have sailed from the port, where she had shipped her cargo, without a knowledge of the blockade. Thus by Article XVIII

I

23 The Nancy, Hurd. 1 Acton, p. 58.

24 The Nancy, Woodberry. Ibid. p. 63.

65.

25 The Eagle, Acton, p.

26 The Franciska. Spinks, Eccl. and Admiralty Reports, II. p. 113.

of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and the United States of America 27 (19 Nov. 1794) it was provided that "Whereas it frequently happens that vessels sail for a port or place belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the place is either besieged, blockaded, or invested, it is agreed that every vessel so circumstanced may be turned away from such port or place, but she shall not be detained, nor her cargo, if not contraband, confiscated, unless after notice." Lord Stowell was called upon to interpret this Treaty in dealing with the case of an American vessel taken in a voyage from Hamburg to Amsterdam, which latter port was under blockade. It appeared that the vessel had sailed from America with innocent intentions on the part of the owners, for it was not known at that time in America, that Amsterdam was in a state of investment. It was therefore contended on behalf of the owners, that under the Treaty with Great Britain, the vessel could not be confiscated for breach of blockade, unless she had attempted to enter the port of Amsterdam after notice that it was under blockade. It has been said," observed Lord Stowell, in the course of his judgment," that by the American Treaty, there must be previous warning. Certainly where vessels sail without a knowledge of the blockade, a notice is necessary; but if you can affect them with knowledge of that fact, a warning then becomes an idle ceremony, of no use, and therefore not to be required. The Master, the Consignees, and all persons intrusted with the management of the vessel, appear to have been sufficiently informed of this blockade, and therefore they are not in the situation

66

27 Martens, Récueil, V. p. 676. Newport Insurance Company, 4 28 The Columbia, 1 Ch. Rob. Cranch, p. 185. v. The

P. 154. Fitzsimmons

Constructive notice.

66

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"."

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,

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.

66

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.