the epochs, when the more rigorous usages of War have been formally renounced by the leading Maritime Powers, after whose example such usages have subsequently been allowed by all civilised Nations to fall into desuetude.

The Right of a Belligerent to debar his Enemy from all supplies by blockading his coasts, is a right in the exercise of which all Nations, which profess Neutrality, must be prepared to acquiesce; but the interests of Neutral Commerce under the more enlightened views of the present age as to the reciprocal benefits which result from Commerce, may demand a more candid consideration at the hands of Belligerent Powers, than they have heretofore received.

That a Belligerent Power should cut off the supplies, which a Neutral merchant is carrying from a Neutral port to the Enemy's country, is eminently reasonable; but that a Belligerent Power should cut off the supplies, which a Neutral merchant is carrying from the Enemy's

ports to a Neutral country, may not accord so entirely with Reason, nor will it always rest upon the same foundations of Necessity. Great Britain and France established a blockade on 1 June 1854, against the vessels of all Nations entering the river Danube, whilst Neutral vessels were allowed to come out with cargoes destined to Neutral ports. Accordingly Greek and Ionian vessels continued to load cargoes in the Danubian ports, and the Neutral Nations of Europe were not debarred during the continuance of hostilities from all access to one of their accustomed granaries. It may well merit the calm consideration of Statesmen, whether the conduct of the Allied Powers on this occasion, in the exercise of the Right of Blockade, has not furnished an example of moderation, which will be deserving of imitation under circumstances of an analogous nature, where Neutral Nations depend upon access to the country of a Belligerent for their normal supplies of an article of primary necessity.

Another question suggests itself in reference

66

to the exercise of the Right of Blockade arising out of the Declaration of the Congress of Paris, that "Blockades in order to be binding ought to be effective;" in other words, ought to be maintained by a force sufficient to prevent really all access to the coast of the Enemy." No explanation is afforded in the Protocols of the Congress on the subject of the forms, which are to attest the reality of an effective Blockade.

On the one hand, it seems reasonable to suppose, that the Congress had in view some other criterion of the reality of an effective Blockade than the actual capture of an offending vessel; on the other hand, where the presence of a blockading squadron off the mouth of a port is notorious, a Neutral merchant can hardly claim in good Faith, that his vessel should receive an actual warning from one of the Belligerent cruisers, in order that the reality should be established of all access to the Enemy's coast being interdicted. It may however deserve consideration, whether the good Faith of every Belligerent Power, which is a

party to the Declaration of Paris, should not prompt it to grant a period of Grace, after a Blockade has been de facto established, during which the effectiveness of the Blockade shall be attested to Neutral merchants by an actual warning given by the blockading squadron to all vessels seeking access to a blockaded port, and during which period no Neutral vessel shall be confiscated, unless she attempts to run past the blockading squadron after such warning.

With regard to Contraband of War, no merchant can with reason complain of being treated by a Belligerent Power as an adherent of the Enemy, if he carries to the Enemy supplies of war; but there are many articles of Equivocal Use, and there will be from time to time articles of Novel Character, respecting which it will not be always clear to the merchant, that it is inconsistent with Neutrality to transport them to the Enemy's country. Naval steam-engines, for instance, are articles of modern invention, and were for some time. considered to be only serviceable for vessels

of Commerce, whereas they are now likely to supersede all other motive power for ships of War. It may be a question in the present day, whether it would not be in accordance with that large Equity, which the great and rapid development of International Commerce demands at the hands of Belligerents, in order that good Faith on all sides should be maintained, that every Belligerent Power should at the outset of War notify to all Neutral Powers what articles of Equivocal Use and Novel Character it intends to capture and confiscate, if they should be intercepted by its cruisers in the course of transport to the Enemy's country. That Belligerent Powers are entitled to notify such articles to Neutral Powers, and to confiscate them after such Notification, seems not to have been doubted in the seventeenth century. Sir Leoline Jenkins, after stating his opinion to King Charles II, that nothing ought to be adjudged Contraband by the Law of Nations but what is subservient to the uses of War, goes on to say, "except in the case of Besieged Places, or of a General Notification made by Spain to all the world,