instituted by the three British ships under the command of Captain Robert Campbell, as the senior officer. Marshal Murat was, at the time, chief of the Neapolitan government, and Naples was the ally of France. The blockade was rather a blockade of ships than of the port, and established in order to prevent the escape of the ships blockaded, and baffle their ulterior hostile purposes. The grant of £150,000 was paid to the trustees for them to cause a proper and legal distribution of it among the crews, in lieu of prize money, and the question raised was as to the claim and right of the Grasshopper to share jointly with the Tremendous and Alcmene. And for this purpose, the question was submitted to the judge of the High Court of Admiralty for his determination by consent of parties.

It appeared that at the commencement of the investment in the Bay of Naples, all three of the British menof-war were present. The Grasshopper, however, was not present at the time of the summons, nor at the time of the surrender of the Neapolitan ships of war. The reason of the Grasshopper's absence was, that her commander, Sir Charles Burrard, had been ordered elsewhere by his superior, Captain Robert Campbell. Sir William Scott's decision was that the Grasshopper was entitled to shares; observing that "the summons is usually the conclusion of the business, after the parties have taken their positions, and have made the advances, and have sounded the dispositions of the persons who are the objects of attack; but the blockade or the siege commences long before that time."

The Grasshopper, therefore, comes under the ordinary qualification of prize interest, because she was present at the commencement, and contributed to the operation

528

BALTIC BLOCKADE CASES OF 1854.

of stopping egress of the blockaded ships. Both her coöperation and association at the early stage of the siege, served to intimidate the foe and compel the ultimate surrender of the ships in the port where they were quartering.

In the Diligentia (1 Dods. 404), there is no general principle settled defining or regulating blockade by the case, but it is suggestive only to naval commanders as to the propriety of detaining for adjudication as prize any vessel when once seized as such. This was a Danish ship, originally seized by Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Cotton, in the Tagus, in 1808, and by him released on the evacuation of Portugal by the French. Admiral Berkely, succeeding to the command of that station, in January, 1809, again seized the vessel and sent her in to England as prize. The question raised was whether the original actual captor was now entitled or the subsequent; and it was determined that the last seizor, after an abandonment, was the only captor.

In the three volumes of Haggard, and those of W. Robinson, there are several cases touching prize agents, booty, and joint capture in the slave trade. But with these exceptions, no other cases involving the discussion of prize interests in general or blockade in particular, are to be found regularly reported until the occurrence of the Russian War.

The preceding cases, therefore, may be said to comprise all the decisions relating to blockade which were pronounced by Lord Stowell, during a highly exciting period of maritime warfare, and to complete the design of this treatise, it now remains to refer more particularly to those questions of blockade growing out of the blockade of Russian ports in 1854-5, and which

BLOCKADE OF BALTIC PORTS.

529

were heard and determined by Sir Stephen Lushington, the accomplished English Judge of Admiralty during this latter period; some of which prize decisions were subsequently reëxamined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and qualified or reversed.

CASES GROWING OUT OF THE RUSSIAN WAR OF 1854.

THE furnished materials for these decisions were not all accessible in this country at the commencement of this work; and were only partially to be found in Moore's (P. C.) Reports and Deane on Blockade. But recently, the second volume of Spinks' Eccl. and Adm. Reports, and also a separate volume of Spinks' Prize Cases have reached the United States; and, at the present date (March, 1869), reference to all these sources of authority is practicable. Nevertheless, the intention early announced1 is still proposed to be carried out, of inserting in Appendix (H) the points decided in Spinks' second volume and also on Prize Cases.

A few of these decisions relate exclusively to blockade, and may accordingly find an appropriate place in this connection. Hardly any one single topic has been touched upon by Sir Stephen Lushington, which was not formerly, either solemnly or incidentally, considered by Lord Stowell. In this course, the former has travelled almost pari passu in the track of the latter magistrate, successively adopting and reverently indorsing the decisions and even the dicta of Lord Stowell. With two possible exceptions, the decisions and doctrines of 1 Ante, p. 180.

530

BLOCKADES, ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED,

both jurists either are, or were intended to be identical. One of these exceptional cases related to the blockade designed to be imposed upon inland seas or gulfs, which were upon one side bordered by neutral territory. The other case arises out of what might seem to have been an equivocal decision pronounced by the Privy Council Committee, in the case of the Ostsee, reported 9 Moore, 150; S. C. 2 Spinks, 170; and Spinks' Prize Cases, 174. With these possible exceptions, both Stowell and Lushington are in entire and complete accord; and there is scarcely a conceivable topic discussed by the one concerning blockade, which has not also been either judicially discussed or decided by the other.

A blockade may be either absolute or qualified; but whether one or the other, certain duties devolve upon the belligerent who shall declare or impose such blockade; while certain rights and privileges appertain and accrue to neutrals, who may be thereby affected injuriously. The effect of such interdiction upon the trade of an adverse belligerent is seldom to be taken into account, or seriously considered; for the object of all blockades is to inflict injury and damage directly upon a belligerent, but only incidentally upon a neutral, jure belli. Therefore, in reducing a port, coast, or territory, to the condition and state of an oppidum obsessum or portus clausus, all proper preliminary forms should be duly observed and conformed to.

Blockades should be duly imposed, formally notified, and effectively maintained. All these ingredients are requisite, and the absence of any one of them may defeat their strict enforcement against neutrals. Such hostile measures of restriction against trade and navigation, once defeated in any particular, may fail entirely,

SHOULD BE DULY IMPOSED, NOTIFIED AND MAINTAINED. 531

and cannot be revived but by a process de novo, or fresh imposition or declaration. When duly declared and notified, blockades should be kept efficient and continued so without intermission.

The better definition of an effective blockade would seem to be such a beleaguering of a place that all entrance to or exit from the blockaded port would be apprehended to be dangerous. This is briefly the substance of the general rule; although, doubtless, there may be some possible qualifications to this as well as to all other general rules.

Another definition of efficient blockade may be, that where it is not practicable to get in or out of a closed port without the risk of capture, unless it be in a fog, or in the night, or in case of violent winds, or in the absence, temporarily, of the whole or portions of the blockading force, either of which contingencies might enable an intentional violator, clandestinely or fraudulently, to take advantage of such casual relaxation of the restriction.

But these and other subjects, such as capture, condemnation, release, restitution, remuneration, probable cause, costs, and damages, published notice, and official notifications at home and abroad, through foreign envoys, ministers, and other officials, residing in neighboring countries, publication of intention and actual imposition of blockade, distinctions between notified and de facto blockades, egress or ingress with or without permission, treaties and their construction and application, constructive, delegated or express authority of a commander to impose a blockade and its validity or legality when so imposed, have all been amply inves