one of the belligerent cruisers that the blockade was raised, and entered the port unmolested (c); or, apparently, if she leaves solely for the purpose of carrying home distressed neutral seamen thrown out of work by the hostilities and detained in the various ports of the belligerent country (d). But although such excuses may secure neutral vessels from condemnation, they will not necessarily avert capture. For breach of blockade is primâ facie good ground for seizure, and it may be that only on resort to adjudication will the true circumstances appear in which the breach occurred.

No vessel can be condemned in respect of breach of blockade unless it can be shown in fact or constructively that the master was aware of the existence of the blockade. This is a condition precedent to condemnation most clearly laid down. It follows, therefore, that public notification of blockade must be given by the belligerent declaring it before or immediately on its enforcement. Mere proclamation of blockade does not, as already observed, itself constitute blockade, the proclamation or notice being simply primâ facie evidence of the fact; and a blockade, however effective, is not regarded as in force as against neutrals until the fact of it has been brought to their knowledge. All that is necessary is to prove knowledge on the part of the individuals attempting the breach (e). In the case of uncivilized powers, whilst they are not to be held bound by all the rules of the law of nations, no indulgence is to be shown them in respect of any breach of the well-known law of blockade (f). Notification to a foreign government is constructive notice to the individual members of the nation, for it is the duty of such government to inform its subjects, and a neutral master can never be heard to aver in his defence

(c) The Neptunus, 2 Rob. 110.

(d) The Rose in Bloom, 1 Dod. 58. For comments on the above exceptions vide Twiss, Law of Nations, 2nd ed. pp. 217, 218.

(e) The Mercurius, 1 Rob. 82.

(f) The Hurtige Hane, 3 Rob. 324.

that his government failed to inform him. If the defence be true, it may give rise to a claim as between him and the government, but into this the captors will decline to enter (g); and a shipmaster cannot rely upon the circumstance that no notification has been given to the country from which he is about to sail, if the blockade be a matter of common notoriety.

There are, however, two kinds, or, rather, two views to be taken, of blockade: blockade in the one case by notice, and in the other de facto.

If a neutral vessel shall have sailed for a blockaded port, after notice of the blockade has been given to the country from which she sailed, she will, primâ facie, be liable to condemnation. If, however, she shall have departed before any such notification, then the blockade will be, so far as she is concerned, de facto, and she is then, unless otherwise informed of it, entitled to notification on the part of the blockading squadron. But a vessel approaching a blockaded port with intent to violate the blockade is not entitled to be warned off (h).

If a ship be seized whilst hovering off a port under blockade by notice, the plea that she was going to the blockading squadron to ask for authority to continue her voyage will not be accepted (i).

In The Union (j), where a Danish vessel had been seized by a British cruiser for attempting to run the blockade during the Anglo-Russian war, it was held that inasmuch as it was practicable to inquire at a neighbouring neutral port as to the maintenance of the blockade, there was no excuse for making

(9) The Spes and Irene, 5 Rob. 79.

(h) The Hallie Jackson, Blatch. Pr. Ca. 42.

(i) The Admiral, 3 Wall. 603; The Josephine, ibid. 83; The Cheshire, ibid. 231.

(j) 2 Ec. & Ad. Rep. (Spinks), 161.

inquiries of the blockading squadron.

"When it is intended

to prove ignorance of a blockade which was a matter of general notoriety," said Dr. Lushington, "it must be proved by the clearest and most satisfactory evidence to the judgment of the Court."

In The Jeanne Marie (k), where a cargo had been bought before war occurred, and the purchasers were moreover ignorant at the time the vessel sailed of the fact that the loading port was under blockade, the cargo was restored. It was true that the shippers, who were purchasers' agents, were aware of the facts when they shipped the cargo; but it was held by the Court that the cargo-owner is not necessarily bound by the act of his agent, when the latter has become a belligerent, and the cargo-owner has no control over him. But where, as in The Nornen (1), the cargo has been purchased in the blockaded port by an agent of the cargo-owners specially sent for that purpose, condemnation will follow.

There is this main difference between a blockade by notification and a blockade de facto;-in the former case the act of sailing for the invested port is prima facie considered an attempted breach ab initio, whereas, in the latter, the mere sailing in ignorance is no offence, and a vessel may even, on a doubtful or provisional destination, sail for a port blockaded de facto, on the prospect of the blockade having been raised by the time of her arrival (m). But in this event she must, on approaching her destination, apply for information, not at the mouth of the blockaded port, but at some other port lying in the way,-if possible, a port of the blockading power (n). Otherwise, a neutral vessel, on being

(k) 2 Ec. & Ad. Rep. (Spinks), 165.

(1) Ibid. 169.

(m) The Neptunus, 2 Rob. 110; The Columbia, 1 Rob. 130. Cf. The Monarch, p. 125, infra.

(n) The Betsey, 1 Rob. 334; The Shepherdess, 5 Rob. 262; The Delta, Blatch. Pr. Ca. 133; The Empress, ibid. 175; The Cheshire, ibid. 643.

seen by one of the blockading squadron, would seek information of her; but in the temporary absence of belligerent cruisers she would be tempted to run direct into the blockaded port (o). This is the general rule, but if, in any case, a master has in departing from it acted bonâ fide and reasonably, an exception may be made to it (p). In The Betsey (q) (1799) the rule was relaxed in favour of a master who had sailed from an American port, on the ground that at such a distant port he could not have had constant notice of the state of the blockade. But this was before the days of telegraphs and rapid postal communication.

A master, when informed that his port of destination is blockaded, must forthwith turn away. "It must be clear and obvious that the neighbourhood of the blockaded port cannot be considered as the fit locus deliberandi of his future plans," whatever may be his difficulty in determining where he should go (r).

In The Franciska (Northcote v. Douglas) (s) it was declared not to be the law that the neutral is always entitled to warning from the blockading squadron before seizure, in case of a de facto blockade of which there has been no official notification. If he has obtained knowledge anyhow of such blockade, he is liable to seizure. And when the acts of the belligerent are generally known, such knowledge may be presumed without distinct proof of personal knowledge. But the facts with the knowledge of which the individual is to be fixed must be such as to admit of no reasonable doubt; and the notice which is to be inferred from general notoriety must be such that if given in the form of a public notification or of a particular warning it would have been legal and effectual.

(0) The Spes and Irene, 5 Rob. 76.

(p) The Empress, supra.

(a) Supra.

() The Apollo, 5 Rob. 289.

(s) 26 L. T. 113.

As, for instance, the notice of a blockade must not be more extensive than the blockade itself, otherwise a neutral may safely disregard it.

In the case of vessels coming out of a blockaded port, no notice is necessary after a blockade shall have existed de facto for any length of time, for it is obvious that knowledge of the blockade must in such case exist on the part of vessels within the port (†).

In the Franco-Prussian war, French naval officers were instructed that ships approaching a blockaded port were not to be deemed to intend a violation of the blockade until its notification had been inscribed on their register or ship's papers by an officer of one of the blockading vessels (u).

If a neutral vessel whose master has no knowledge of the blockade, arrives off a blockaded port, she must be warned off by the blockading squadron; but until such warning has been given, and has been disregarded, no grounds exist for condemnation. If the captors have reason to believe that the averment of ignorance is fraudulent, they are entitled to capture the vessel, and send her before a court of prize for adjudication (v). If a vessel be thus warned off by a blockading cruiser, the commander of the cruiser is required to write a notice of the blockade upon one or more of the principal ship's-papers (x).

When a vessel has been captured and brought into port, her master, and such of the ship's company as may be considered necessary, are subjected to a most minute and searching examination on all points material to the purposes of adjudication. As will be concluded on perusal of the Standing

(t) The Vrow Judith, 1 Rob. 153.

(u) Wheat. Int. Law, 2 Eng. ed. 597.

(v) Vide sub Adjudication and Condemnation, p. 316, infra.

(x) Instructions to the Navy, Art. X.; Story on Prize Courts, p. 257.