as an enemy by the belligerent. The question, Y"hat con stitutes such a belligerent investment of au enemy s port as to create an obligation on the part of neutrals to abstain from attempting to enter it, has been much controverted since the "armed neutrality" of 1780 ; but all uncertainty as to the principle upon which the decision in each case must proceed, has been put an end to by the declaration of the powers assembled in congress at Paris in 185G, that " Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, must be maintained by a force sufficient really to preent access to the enemy s coast." The question of fact will still be a subject for judicial inquiry in each case of capture, whether the conditions under which a blockade has been maintained satisfy the above declaration. If an asserted blockade is maintained in a manner which satisfies the above declaration, there is no limit to the extent of an enemy s coast which may be placed under blockade. There is also a general consent amongst nations that a neutral merchant must have knowledge of a blockade in order to be liable to be treated as an enemy for attempting to break it ; but there is not any uniform practice amongst nations on this subject further than that when a blockade has become notorious, the knowledge of it will be presumed against every neutral vessel which attempts to enter the blockaded port. On the other hand, where a blockade is not notorious, it is in accordance with the practice of nations to give some notice of it to neutrals; and this notice may be communicated to them either by actual warning given to each neutral vessel which seeks to cross the line of blockade, or by a constructive warning to all neutrals resulting from an official notification of the blockade on the part of the blockading power to all powers in amity with it. It is a growing practice, if not altogether an established practice, amongst nations which accredit to one another resident envoys, for belligerents to notify diplomatically to the neutral powers the fact that they have placed an enemy s port under blockade ; and it is the rule of the prize courts of Great Britain and of the United States of America to hold that, where such an official notification has been made, all the subjects of the neutral powers may be presumed to have knowledge of the blockade. Other powers, amongst which France may be mentioned, have been accustomed to direct their blockading cruisers to give warning of the blockade to each vessel that attempts to cross the line of blockade, and not to capture any vessel unless she attempts to break the blockade after such warning ; but the practice of France agrees with the practice of other powers in not giving such warning after a blockade has become notorious. There is, further, a general practice amongst nations to treat the act of sailing with an intention to enter a blockaded port as an unneutral act, which will warrant the capture of a neutral merchant vessel by a belligerent cruiser on any part of the high seas, unless clear evidence is forthcoming from the captured vessel that the intention has been abandoned, or that its execution was contingent on the blockade being raised. After a port has been placed under blockade, egress is prohibited to all neutral vessels, except to such as have entered the port before the blockade was established, if they come out either in ballast or with cargoes taken on board before the com mencement of the blockade. No warning is required to affect such vessel with a knowledge of the blockade, and if any such vessel should succeed in passing through the blockading squadron it becomes liable to capture as good prize by a belligerent cruiser on any part of the high seas, until it has reached its port of destination, when the offence is considered to be purged. Under the ancient practice both ship and cargo were confiscable for the breach of a blockade, and even the captain and crew were liable to be treated as enemies. A milder practice is now generally observed as regards the captain and crew, and a certain equity is administered in the British and American prize courts towards the owners of cargo, where the ship and the cargo do not belong to the same parties, and the owners of the cargo have not any knowledge of the blockade, or have been unabl* to countermand the shipment of the cargo since the blockade has become known to them. In such cases the cargo is released, although the ship may be
rightfully condemned to the captors.(t. t.)
BLOIS, the chief town of the department of Loir-et-Cher in France, is situated in the form of an amphitheatre on the steep slope of a hill on the right bank of the Loire, 35 miles. S.W. of Orleans, in 47 35 X. lat. and 1 29 E. long. It is united by a bridge of the 17th century with the suburb of Yienue on the other side of the river. The houses of the older part of the town are frequently of antiquarian interest, and the streets, which are in many cases rather stairways than streets, have often a picturesque appearance. The castle is an immense structure built at different periods, part as early as the 1 3th century. It was the birth-place of Louis XII., and is noted as the scene of the assassination of the duke of Guise and his brother the cardinal by command of Henry III. Among the other remarkable buildings in the town are the Hotel de Ville, the episcopal palace, now occupied by the prefecture, the cathedral of St Louis (a modern structure), and the churches of St Vincent and St Nicholas. An ancient aqueduct, cut in the solid rock by the Romans, conveys the water of several springs to a reservoir, whence it is distributed to different parts of the town. Blois is the seat of a bishopric founded by Louis XIV., and has a communal college, a normal school, and two diocesan seminaries ; an exchange, a hospital, a theatre, a botanical garden, a public library, and an agricultural society. It manufactures gloves, hosiery, hardware, and pottery, and has a considerable trade in wine, brandy, and timber. Population in 1872, 17,475. Though possibly existing under the Roman empire, Blois is first distinctly mentioned by Gregory of Tours in the 6th century, and does not become of much importance till the 9th or 10th, when it forms the chief town of a countship. From that date it appears very frequently in French history. In 1577 and 1588 the States-General were held in the city.
was born on the 29th May 1786, at Bury-St-Edmund s. He received his first education at his father s school in that town, and was then transferred to the grammar school, where, under the able instruction of the Rev. M. T. Becher, he laid the foundations of an unusually sound and thorough classical scholarship. His career at Trinity College, Cam bridge, which he entered in 1804, was brilliant. He gained the Browne medals for Latin and Greek odes, and carried off the Craven scholarship. In 1808 he graduated as third wrangler and first medallist, and in the following- year was elected to a fellowship at Trinity College. The first-fruits of his scholarship was an edition of the Prome theus of JEschylus, in 1810 ; this was followed by editions of the Septem contra Thelas, Persce, Choephora, and Agamemnon, of Calliinachus, and of the fragments of Sappho, Sophron, and Alcseus. Blomfield, however, soon ceased to devote himself to mere scholarship. He had been ordained in 1810, and held for a short time the curacy of Chesterford. He was then presented to the rectory of Quarrington, and shortly afterwards to that of Dunton, in Buckinghamshire, where he remained for about five years. In 1817 he was moved to the benefices of Great and Little Chesterford and Tuddenham, and he was in the same year appointed private chaplain to Howley, bishop of London. In 1819 he was nominated by Lord Liverpool to
the rich living of St Botolph s, Bishopsgate, and in 1822