of war before she had been formally condemned in a prize court; or whether she must not be held to be still a prize, and, as such, prohibited from entering our ports.  The Acting Attorney-General, founding his opinion on Earl Russell’s despatch to your Grace, of the 31st January, 1862, and on “Wheaton’s International Law,” states in substance that it was open to Captain Semmes to convert this vessel into a ship of war, and that she ought to be admitted into our ports on that footing.

On the 8th August the vessel entered Simon’s Bay, and the Admiral wrote that she had two small rifled guns, with a crew of ten men, and that her cargo of wool was still on board.  He was still doubtful of the propriety of admitting her.

On the 10th August, after further consultation with the Acting Attorney-General, I informed Sir Baldwin Walker that, if the guns had been put on board by the Alabama, or if she had a commission of war, or if she were commanded by an officer of the Confederate Navy, there must be held to be a sufficient setting forth as a vessel of war to justify her admission into port in that character.

The Admiral replied in the affirmative on the first and last points, and she was admitted.

The Tuscaloosa sailed from Simon’s Bay on the morning of the 14th instant, but was becalmed in the vicinity until the following day, when she sailed about noon.  The Alabama left before noon on the 15th instant.  Neither of these vessels was allowed to remain in port longer than was really necessary for the completion of their repairs.

On the 16th, at noon, the Georgia, another Confederate war steamer, arrived at Simon’s Bay in need of repairs, and is still there.

Before closing this despatch I wish particularly to request instructions on a point touched on in the letter from the United States Consul of the 17th instant, viz.:  the steps which should be taken here in the event of the cargo of any vessel captured by one of the belligerents being taken out of the prize at sea, and brought into one of our ports in a British or other neutral vessel.

Both belligerents are strictly interdicted from bringing their prizes into British ports by Earl Russell’s letter to the Lords of the Admiralty of the 1st June, 1861, and I conceive that a colonial government would be justified in enforcing compliance with that order by any means at its command, and by the exercise of force if it should be required.

But that letter refers only to “prizes;” that is, I conceive, to ships themselves, and makes no mention of the cargoes they may contain.  Practically the prohibition has been taken to extend to the cargoes; and I gathered, from a conversation with Captain Semmes on the subject of our neutrality regulations, that he considered himself debarred from disposing of them, and was thus driven to the destruction of all that he took.  But I confess that I am unable to discover by what legal means I could prevent the introduction