In England a declaration of war is equal to an Act of Parliament prohibiting all intercourse with the enemy except by the license of the Crown.  The penalty of such illegal intercourse is the confiscation of the cargo and of the ship engaged in such trade.  The instructions are emphatic upon the point:  “The commander should detain any British vessel which he may meet with trading with the enemy unless, either:  (1) He is satisfied that the master was pursuing such trade in ignorance that war had broken out, or, (2) The vessel is pursuing such trade under a license from the British Government."[3]

[Footnote 3:  British Admiralty Manual of Naval Prize Law (1888), Sec.38.]

When a vessel is bound for a belligerent port it appears that the burden of proof is thrown upon the ship’s captain to show that goods so shipped are not intended for the enemy.  In the case of the Jonge Pieter (1801) goods purchased in England were shipped for an enemy port but were seized by a British cruiser under the right of a belligerent.  It was attempted to be set up that the goods belonged to citizens of the United States, but in the absence of documentary proof condemnation was decreed on the ground of hostile ownership.[4]

[Footnote 4:  4 C. Rob. 79; other cases bearing upon the subject are:  the Samuel (1802), 4 C. Rob. 284 N; the Nayade (1802), 4 C. Rob. 251; the Franklin (1805), 6 C. Rob. 127; see also Kent’s Commentaries, Vol.  I, p. 87; Halleck, International Law (1878), Vol.  II, p. 130; Moore, Digest of Int.  Law, Vol.  VII, p. 534; White, L.Q.  Rev., Vol. 16, p. 407.]

The decisions in these cases as well as the general opinion of the past had shown what the British view was, namely, that all trading with the enemy is absolutely forbidden to British subjects upon the outbreak of war.  But in the controversy between the English Government and that of the United States with reference to foodstuffs bound for Delagoa Bay on board English ships the argument set up by the British authorities was not generally considered well founded, since little more than suspicion was produced as evidence to show that any of the ships really intended to trade with the enemy.  There was no dissent from the established rule that trading with the enemy on the part of the subjects of the belligerent States is prohibited.  But those nations whose citizens or subjects suffered loss by the enforcement of the English law were not satisfied that the English ordinance had been violated either in deed or by intent.

Soon after war had begun it was known that the English authorities would scrutinize closely any transactions of British ships, or of ships leased by English firms, which had dealings in a commercial way with the warring Republics.  On November 24 the Official Imperial Gazette of Berlin had published the following note:  “According to official information British subjects are forbidden by English law to have any trade or