Chap. X. with Mr. Seward, an account of which is given in the following extracts from a despatch of the 2nd May:

"I have made it my business, since the entrance of the present Administration into office nearly two months ago, to endeavour to ascertain precisely their intentions with regard to the commerce of foreign nations with the States which have withdrawn from the Union. Up to the day before the blockade was announced, the Government had not itself come to any decision on the subject. Nor did I think it expedient to press it to make any declaration so long as the commercial operations of British merchants and British vessels in the seceded States were carried on without hindrance and without inconvenience. But since the blockade has been proclaimed, I have thought myself entitled to ask with persistence for definite information respecting the mode in which it is to be carried into effect. I had in particular a long conversation on the subject with Mr. Seward, in presence of the Chief Clerk of the State Department, on the 29th ultimo. I had prepared Mr. Seward for the interview by suggesting to him, through the Under-Secretary of State, the advisableness of diminishing the disagreeable impression which the announcement of the blockade would make abroad, by giving, as soon as possible, definite assurances that it would be carried on with a liberal consideration for the interests of foreign nations.

"So far as assurances in general terms go, nothing could be more satisfactory than Mr. Seward's language. I did not, however, succeed in obtaining at the time as definite a declaration of the rules which would be observed as I had hoped.

"The principle point to which I drew Mr. Seward's attention was the extreme vagueness of the information which was given to us. I referred him to the notifications of blockades made by Great Britain during the late war with Russia, and pointed out to him the care and precision with which every particular was stated in them. I asked whether it was intended to issue similar notices for each Southern port as soon as the actual blockade of it should commence.

"The reply which I received was, that the practice of the United States was not to issue such notices, but to notify the blockade individually to each vessel approaching the blockaded port, and to inscribe a memorandum of the notice having been given on the ship's papers. No vessel was liable to seizure which had not been individually warned. This plan had, I was assured, been found to be in practice the most convenient and the fairest to all parties. The fact of there being blockading ships present to give the warning was the best notice and best proof that the port was actually and effectually blockaded.

"The principal objection to the plan appeared to me to be that it might in some cases expose foreign vessels to the loss and inconvenience

of making a useless voyage, which a more general and public announcement of the blockade would have prevented.

"I observed to Mr. Seward that the limits of the blockade which it was intended to establish were not clearly stated. It was not easy to understand exactly to what extent of coast the expression 'the ports within' the States mentioned was applicable. Mr. Seward said that it was intended to blockade the whole coast from Chesapeake Bay to the mouth of the Rio Grande. I observed to him that the extent of the coast between these two points was, I supposed, about 3,000 miles. Surely the United States had not a naval force sufficient to establish an effective blockade of such a length of coast. Mr. Seward, however, maintained that the whole would be blockaded, and blockaded effectively.

"I may perhaps be allowed to refer your Lordship to a clear declaration of the principles of the United States on such matters, which is contained in a note from Mr. Buchanan dated 29th December, 1846, and transmitted to the Foreign Office in Sir Richard Pakenham's despatch of the same date.

"Mr. Seward assured me that all foreign vessels already in port when the blockade should be set on foot would be allowed to come out with their cargoes. I asked whether they would be allowed to come out with cargoes shipped after the blockade was actually established. Mr. Seward did not speak positively on this point; what he said seemed to imply that the time at which the cargo was shipped would not be inquired into. I said that I supposed it was clearly understood that foreign ships coming out of blockaded ports in which there were no United States' Customs authorities would not be interfered with by a blockading squadron on the plea of their being without clearances or other papers required by the Revenue laws.

"Mr. Seward said that it was the bond fide intention of the Government to allow foreign vessels already in port when the blockade was established to depart without molestation.

"He did not say that any particular term would be fixed after the expiration of which foreign vessels would no longer be allowed to quit blockaded ports.

"He did not repeat to me the assurance he gave some time ago to one of my colleagues that vessels arriving without a knowledge of the blockade would be allowed to go into a blockaded port and come out again.

"Nor did he say anything of the intention, which he expressed to another of my colleagues, of proposing to the Legislature that the United States should adhere to the Declaration of the Congress of Paris on maritime law.

"On my pressing Mr. Seward to give me, either in writing or at all events by a formal verbal announcement, some definite information for the guidance of British merchant-vessels, he promised to send me a copy of the instructions issued to the officers of the blockading

Chap. X.

Chap. X. squadron, and said he was confident I should find them perfectly satisfactory. He was good enough to add, that if in any individual cases the rules of the blockade should bear hardly on British vessels, he should be ready to consider the equity of the matter, and to receive favourably any representations which I might make on behalf of the interests of British subjects."

The Secretary of the Navy, on being applied to, declined to furnish a copy of the Instructions, but Lord Lyons received an assurance1 that "the blockade will be conducted as strictly according to the recognized rules of public law, and with as much liberality towards neutrals, as any blockade ever was by a belligerent." The following note was also sent to the Spanish Minister, Señor Tassara :

"Sir,

Mr. Seward to Señor Tassara.

Washington, May 2, 1861. "In acknowledging the receipt of your note of the 30th ultimo, on the subject of the blockade of the ports in several of the States, I deem it proper to state for your further information

"1. That the blockade will be strictly enforced upon the principles recognized by the law of nations.

"2. That armed vessels of neutral States will have the right to enter and depart from the interdicted ports.

"3. That merchant vessels in port at the time the blockade took effect, will be allowed a reasonable time for departure.

“I avail, &c.

(Signed) "W. H. SEWARD."

The earliest attempt to institute an effective blockade was notified as follows by the officer in command of the home squadron:

“PROCLAMATION.

"To all whom it may concern:

"I hereby call attention to the Proclamation of his Excellency Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, under date of the 27th April, 1861, for an efficient blockade of the ports of Virginia and North Carolina, and warn all persons interested that I have a

14th May, 1861.

sufficient naval force there for the purpose of carrying out that Chap. X. Proclamation.

"All vessels passing the Capes of Virginia, coming from a diatance, and ignorant of the Proclamation, will be warned off, and those passing Fortress Monroe will be required to anchor under the guns of the fort, and subject themselves to an examination.

"United States' Flag-ship Cumberland,' off

"Fortress Monroe, Virginia, April 30, 1861.

(Signed) "G. J. PENDERGRAST,

"Commanding Home Squadron."

This notification was irregular and invalid, and no neutral vessel entering any of the ports of Virginia and North Carolina, and knowing of the blockade by the notification alone, could have been legally condemned.1 The ports of North Carolina were not blockaded, as we

1 A notification that a blockade is about to be instituted, or even that a fleet has sailed for the purpose of instituting a blockade, is not equivalent to a notification of an actual blockade. Further, a notification of blockade must not be more extensive than the blockade itself. A belligerent cannot be allowed to proclaim that he has instituted a blockade of all the ports of the enemy within certain specified limits, when in truth he has only blockaded some of them. Such a course would introduce all the evils of what is termed a "paper blockade," and would be attended with the grossest injustice to the commerce of of neutrals. Accordingly, a neutral is at liberty to disregard such a notice, and is not liable to the penalties attending a breach of blockade for afterwards attempting to enter one of the ports which really are blockaded.

A striking illustration of these propositions is afforded by the Judgment pronounced by the Privy Council in the case of Northcote v. Douglas (The Franciska), Moore's Privy Council Cases, x, 37, from which they are in substance taken. On the 11th April, 1854, Admiral Sir C. Napier, commanding the British fleet in the Baltic, had given notice that "Her Britannic Majesty's fleet will sail this day for the Gulf of Finland, to place in a state of blockade the whole of the Russian ports of the Baltic and in the Gulfs of Finland and Bothnia ;" and the British Vice-Consul at Memel had on the 17th published a notice that the Admiral "had placed the whole of the Russian ports in the East Sea in a state of blockade." In fact, however, the blockade of the coast of Courland commenced on the 17th April; that of Helsingfors and some other ports on the 26th April; that of Revel and other ports on the 20th May; and that of Cronstadt and others in the Gulf of Finland on the 26th June. A Danish vessel left Elsinore on the 14th May, intending to make for Riga (the actual blockade of which commenced on or

66

Chap. X. shall see, till long afterwards. Of the Virginian sea-coast, however, the greater part is inclosed within Chesapeake Bay, the mouth of which is narrow and guarded by the Capes of Virginia," as they are called-Capes Charles and Henry. Fortress Monroe faces this outlet; and immediately south of the fortress the James and Elizabeth Rivers, which drain the southern portions of the State, discharge themselves into the Bay through a passage called Hampton Roads, the narrowest part of the channel not exceeding a mile and a quarter in width. Several ships of war were generally assembled here, and the blockade of Chesapeake Bay and the James appears to have been tolerably effective from the

first.

To

The sudden enforcement of this blockade within three days after the date of the Proclamation pressed with some severity on Northern merchants, as well as on residents within the blockaded territory. the requests of some British merchants residing at New York and Baltimore, that they might be permitted to send ships for the removal of staves and planking purchased, paid for, and ready for delivery at Norfolk and on the James River, Mr. Seward returned a civil refusal. Established rules, he said, would not allow such a concession; and it had already been refused to American merchants who had cotton at Norfolk, which they wished to bring away in American bottoms. A about the 17th April). It was held that she must be released, on the ground that, though Riga was blockaded, and though the master had notice of a blockade, the notice which he had was not in accordance with the facts. It was a notice of a general blockade which did not exist-" a notice which, if he had received it from a British officer, he could not, on the principles already stated, be punished for disregarding."

I need hardly add that the invalidity of the notification did not invalidate the blockade itself, where it existed de facto: thus it could not have been pleaded on behalf of any vessel leaving a port actually blockaded, with knowledge of the blockade, gathered from the notorious presence of the blockading ships or otherwise.