It is in the familiar history of the right of search that precedents must he sought, and they abound there.

In quoting some of them, I impose on myself a double law:  first, I will not confound acts of violence with precedents, and from the abuse which the English made in times past of their maritime preponderance, I will not conclude that every one is at liberty to do to-day as they have done; secondly, among the grave and weighty authors who have made a special study of these questions in the quiet of their retirement, I will confine myself to consulting none but English authorities.  Doubtless, they will not think of challenging these in England.

Chancellor Kent writes:  “If, on making the search, it be discovered that the vessel is employed hi contraband trade, that it transports the enemy’s property, troops, or despatches, it may be rightfully seized and carried for adjudication before a prize court.”

Mr. Phillimore, an English author and an authority on these questions, and one of the judges in the Admiralty, expresses himself thus:  “The carrying of official despatches written by official personages on the public affairs of one of the belligerents, impresses a hostile character on those bearing them.”

Sir William Scott is no less precise:  “The transportation of two or three shiploads of ammunition is necessarily a limited assistance; but, by despatches, the whole plan of the campaign may be transmitted in such a manner as to destroy all the plans of the other belligerent in that part of the world." And he dwells at length on this idea, insisting on the incompatibility which exists between veritable neutrality and the bearing of despatches, “which is an act of the most prejudicial and hostile nature.”

Let us also cite Mr. Jenkinson, afterwards Lord Liverpool.  He establishes in clear terms the fundamental principle of the matter by putting this question, which plain good sense must answer:  “Can it be lawful for you to extend this right (that of the free navigation of neutral vessels) in such a way as to injure me and to serve my enemy?”

Observe that the Queen, in her proclamation of neutrality, has been careful not to omit the interdiction of the transport of despatches.  She therein declares that those who transport “officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, ammunition, or any other article considered by law and modern usage as contraband of war, for either of the contenders, will do it at his own risk and peril, and will incur the high displeasure of her Majesty.”

Nothing can be more explicit, more consistent, and at the same time more reasonable than these declarations.  Sir William Scott is right in saying, that, in undertaking to carry despatches, persons cease to be neutrals and become enemies; this is evident, above all, in the present conflict.  As the serious chances of success of the South are all in Europe, as it would not have revolted had it not counted on Europe, as it would lay down its arms to-morrow if it were proved to it that never, for cotton or any thing else, would Europe come to its aid, it follows, thenceforth, that the despatches forwarded from the South to Europe greatly surpass in military importance the sending of soldiers or supplies.