[32] The paragraph of the Protest which is here criticised is set out at length on p. 81.
[33] See p. 14.
[34] In order not to confuse the argument, I refer here specifically only to the case of a neutral vendor and an enemy purchaser. Where the purchaser is also a neutral trader the legal position does not alter until the facts make the case one of ‘continuous voyage.’
[35] See p. 37.
[36] See the quotation from the Protest, set out on p. 89.
[37] I put this forward purely as a theoretical consideration, because I am not sure that Nelson’s historical blockades fulfilled the condition of not being subject to effective attack. But whether they did or not, the possibilities of destroying the actual as distinguished from the potential effectiveness of a blockade have been entirely altered by the modern appliances of sea-warfare.
[38] See p. 44.
[39] See the footnote on p. 95.
[40] See p. 62.
[41] Letters of Historicus, p. 132, quoted ante, p. 48.